E1 The E1-E2 dyad.
E2
E3E3
E4E4 A The A-B-C-D tetrad.
E5E5 B
E6E6 C
E7E7 D
E8E8
__E9 The E12-E11-E10-E9 tetrad of the 1964 ENERGIES.
_E10 The B-C-D-E8 tetrad is the connective in ENERGIES.
_E11 The E1-E2-E3-A tetrad is the third division of the
_E12 original division of the Dodecad. This is a perfectly logical division but the
B-C-D-E8 tetrad is not the Aristotelian tetrad. If Mr.B had been right on page 36 of Volume three of his DRAMATIC UNIVERSE then Plato, his student Aristole, the Buddha and the other teachers I have quoted at the beginning of this blog would all have to be wrong. I have described how I have “stumbled” upon the update of the 1964 ENERGIES in the 1966 Volume four of THE DRAMATIC UNIVERSE series. The story cantinues at file #1.
===========================================================
This file is getting too full I have deleted file #1 and next year I will go there.
December 30, 2010
. In the December 29 section I said that: “Much of THE DRAMATIC UNIVERSE is too hard for me to chew. …. ‘Too-many Words [ToC2] in the” books he wrote. He told us that he is a writer (C), and “WordErs Don’t Know (C2erPUkn)” it all. His tetrad an page 34 of Volume three would be GOAL (A), DIRECTION (B), INSTRUMENT (C) and GROUND (D).
. Page 36:
“The Aristotelian tetrad can be related to our own according to the scheme of Fig. 37.7.”
. But according to that diagram, the GOAL (A) would be the “formal cause” (B), DIRECTION (B) would be the “final cause” (A), INSTRUMENT (C) would be the “material cause” (D) and GROUD (D) would be the “efficient cause” (C). I may be wrong in making these specific assumptions, but something is definitely not lining up. Even when “WordErs(C2er) are describing their vision, they may “Not Know that they don’t Know (PUknkn)” it. Why? …
Because the belief system (C), they have established before they had their vision (A), will automatically (E6) avoid the “discomfort” of “cognitive dissonance” for them. It will modify or reject the vision if it does not agree with the pre-established belief-system. This is why Lao Tzu said: “He Who (heho) Sick Sick (@p@p), who doesn’t know that he doesn’t know ThereFore (SiYI) does Not feel Sick (PU@p)” or stupid.
. “WordErs(C2er) love words, but they Don’t Know (PUkn)” that they don’t know it all. The Tao Te Ching is primarily addressed to the jnana yogis (B), that’s why I like it best. Because James tried to use photosynthesis to prove that there is no intelligent designer behind this observable manifestation, and because I remembered that Mr.B was talking about it, I used the index of his Volumes to find where it is.
. Now, as you can see from previous sections in this blog, I have used his ENERGIES quite a bit. It was “First printed 1964”. Volume Four was “First printed 1966”. So what he said in there would be an update of what he said before. The title of the chapter I have quoted from is
. Page 103: . . . . . . “THE HISTORY OF LIFE ON THE EARTH”
. There are many parallels between this chapter and Lovelock’s book. Where the two authors agree with each other we can assume that both are right; where they don’t, one of them has to be wrong.
. The DRAMATIC UNIVERSE series has “Too-many Words (TOC2)” in it to my liking but “I did stumble across” the quotes from page 131, I gave in the last section. And the reason I quoted it was because Mr.B was not talking about …
his own tetrad but the Aristotelian tetrad:
. He starts inductively, bottom up, with “constructive energy E 8”. There is the “coalescence” between E8 and “vital energy E 7” then comes the coalescence between E7 and “automatic energy E 6.” Then we move up from E6 to “sensitive energy E 5)” Then up to “the conscious” Energy (E4) and from there to “the Demiurgio Intelligence” (E3). The last two levels didn’t get their two-digit identifiers but since we know what Mr.B is talking about we have no problem with filling them in.
. What we have here are the same “FIVE KOSHAS OR SHEATHS” we have in Sutra 14 of THE HOLY SCIENCE. The only difference is that there the five divisions of the pentad are given in reverse order. We have the deductive, top down, process there. And these are the correspondences we are looking for. Just look at the table of correspondences you get at the beginning of my blog. Either they are all right or they are all wrong.
. The section I have quoted from is not primarily about the A-B-C-D terad, but about the Dodecad. Since this is some kind of update of Mr.B’s ENERGIES, I like to share it with you. This kind of work is not really my dharma. Ideally, a “WordEr” takes my job-description: Type this! Say that!. And out comes something better than I can do alone. I am investing here more time and energy in doing a poorer job.
. There is a very practical reason for the division of labour. I have got a direct experience of it at Atlas Electronics where my partner did the coding (C) and I did the programming (B). We couldn’t hand in our fished job when it was working because it wouldn’t have been fair to the other programmers. As a team we were twice as fast as any other two programmers in the company, no matter how hard they worked. By specializing in your own job, you make less mistakes and so there is less debugging. The programme Jim’s new partner, the computer scientist, couldn’t do in month was working after half a day’s work without having to do any debugging. Jim simply concentrated on his job and I on mine and the job was done as efficiently as can be.
. Before I go over the twelve divisions of the Dodecad, let me quote from page 130 what can serve us as some kind of introduction to the Dodecad:
“…. If we deny …. that there can have been any purpose or plan already existing. [then] The accidental occurrence of favourable conditions …. Could be admitted without postulating any direction or purpose. But we are entitled to ask [James] what ‘favourable’ means in this context. How are we to say that conditions are favourable, except in terms of what happens later?”
. James mentions “favourable conditions” quite frequently but the question is, “favourable” for what? ...
How can our Creator, or Gaia, create “favourable conditions” for something without first knowing what that something is? …
. Same paragraph:
“Rather than believing that significance began with man, we should prefer to regard the entire history of the life on the earth as one Great Event …. If we suppose that the plan requires the overcoming of separateness, then we should say that the value of the contributions is not to be assessed by by their actual future results, but by their place within the Plan that is conceived outside Time itself”. That “place” is outside the “Door, Dasamadwara”. From E4 to E8 we are in the time and space dimension we know. Above level A there are no time and space limitations, and below E8 I don’t know what is there.
. But because the law of correspondence is universal we can get some definite ideas of what has to be above our soul (A) and below our etheric body (D).
. The plan “seems to be the only way to give a reasonable account of the transition from material to vital structures required for the origination of life.” One such vital structure is THE STRUCTURE OF CHLOROPHYLL. The tetrad is definitely another structure. In all N-Term systems all of their parts are needed. Break one of its parts and you break the whole. And so, what Mr.B seems to lead up to, is the structure of the Dodecad.
. Page 131:
“…. organic complexes. These are accounted for by the properties of the four material energies from heat (E 12) to plastic energy (E 9).” That is 4 down 8 to go. “Then we see living matter capable of self-reproduction. This requires a new kind of energy that we call the constructive energy (E 8). …. E 8 is organized by coalescence with the vital energy (E 7) …. It is organized by the automatic energy E 6, as an actualized complex. …. The …. Complex acquires form [from the “formal cause” (B (E5))] and function by the organizing influence of sensitive E 5 …. The sensitive energy is organized by the conscious intervention of the Demiurgic Intelligence.” In ENERGIES we have Conscious Energy (E4) above E5 and Creative Energy (E3) above E4.
. That is ten down two to go.
. Still Page 131:
. “The Source of all life is the CREATIVE OPERATION …. This is transformed from the Transcendental Energy (E 1) which is not committed to any form of Existence and the Unitive Energy (E 2) as an Act of Love. This act can be called the ‘Evocation of the Possibility of Living Forms’.”
. Page 132: Now, going downward, deductively, we get the
“coalescence of the Unitive and Creative Energies.”
. “The foreordained Plan is transformed into an Eternal Pattern by coalescence of the Creative (E 3) and the Conscious Energy (E4).” Next comes “the coalescence of the consciousness (E 4) and sensitive energies (E5). Here we meet and combine with the fourth stage of the descending [deductive] series”.
. So far we have the “coalescence” of E1 with E2, E2 with E3, E3 with E4 and E4 with E5. The fifth stage would be the coalescence of E5 with E6, the sixth stage would be E6 with E7 and the seventh stage would be E7 with E8. What happens below E8? …
Don’t know. The series for which I have evidence from the original programming system and the construction business is from E3 to E8, How come? …
If A-B-C and B-C-D are triads then, by analogy, …
E3-A-B and C-D-E8 must be triads too. How come? … People who have had visions (A) or “Insights(72)” know from personal experience that the visions (A) or intuitions (A) had to come from somewhere. And E3 seems to be a logical place it could come from.
. When we work with our body (D) we use Vital Energy (E7) to bring about a change in the outer objective world (E8). We, the C-D dyad are the “Constant(Cn)” impulse in the C-D-E8 triad. The outer world (E8) is what we are changing.
. “Taoed and TaoAble (A1ptA1) object is the opposite of the Unchanging Tao (CnA1)” or the subject. “Enough(Zu)” work for today
========================================================
December 29, 2010
. There is a statement on page 136 of volume four of THE DRAMATIC UNIVERSE I have failed to quote: “If anyone imagines that the production of chlorophyll was a lucky accident, he as not studied its structure.” In other words, it is more reasonable to assume that this structure was designed than to assume that “nearly 3 billion years” ago, before there was any natural selection, it came about by chance.
. Will somebody, who is able to communicate with James Lovelock, please ask him whether he has “studied its structure? …
The realization, that he has said dumb things could cause him to ask: …
WHO has dumbed me down so much that I could say that? …
And the next question James would have to ask himself would be: …
HOW did the social engineers do that? …
. Much of THE DRAMATIC UNIVERSE is too hard for me to chew. That is why credit for what I understand of it goes to the designers of the IBM computer programming system and to Lao Tzu. I did stumble across a passage, purely by luck of course, that is worth quoting and commenting on: Volume 4, page 131:
“The constructive energy E 8 is organized by coalescence with the vital energy E 7 that carries the pattern of the organic complex to be constructed.”
. Can you see why this statement is perfectly chewable for me? …
The etheric body (D) is fuelled by Vital Energy (E7) and it “carries the pattern of the organic complex [of our physical body (E8)] to be constructed.” A few sections ago I compared the etheric body to a “mould”. Same idea: A mould “carries the pattern” or the form of the “formal cause” (B) to the “material cause” (D).
. The text on page 131 continues:
. “The active structure acquires the power of self-renewal. It is organized by the automatic energy E 6, as an actualized complex.
. “The self-renewing molecular complex acquires form and function by the organizing influence of the sensitive energy E 5 which carries the pattern of the species to be actualized.
. “The sensitive energy [E5] is organized by the conscious [Conscious Energy (E4)] intervention of the Demiurgic Intelligence” (E3).
. J.G. Bennett is describing the tetrad here, and because all A-B-C-D terads are analogous to each other, the correspondence is easy to see. From this example we can see that in order to understand systematics, E1-E2-E3 ….E12 we don’t have to bite off more than we can chew. All we have to do is pick those passages that are “Easy(ez)” for us to understand and in time, passages that are too difficult for us now will become easy.
. “Difficult and Easy Mutually require a task to be Completed (dfezmtco).” But don’t pick tasks that are too difficult to chew, they are a waste of time and energy. If you pick tasks you can get your teeth into then you will find that what is difficult at first will become easy. This is why the same task can be easy for some people and difficult for others. For instance the writing (C) I have to do here, is difficult for me and it would be easy for a communicator (C), and not only that, but he could do a better job. This is where THE DIVISION OF LABOUR comes in.
. Mr.B told us that primarily he is a writer (C) that’s why he could write so many books, but there are “Too-many Words” in them for me.
In the December 26 section I said: “One reason that should motivate us to study ourselves is the fact that our political masters don’t want us to do that.” What would be the best school of psychology to study ourselves? …
The one our political masters don’t want us to study and develop. Neuro-linguistic programming is based on it. How do I know that? …
Because Transactional Analysis is the only school of psychology the founders of NLP are trying to discredit, to “Ridicule(*41)”.
. NLP can be considered an update of Transactional Analysis. It works well for lawyers. With knowledge of NLP you can pick just one suitable member of the jury and get that member to help you get your client off the hook for anything, even murder. Look at the money you can make. I don’t think that an improved version of transactional analysis should be used for that purpose, but the fact that lawyers can do that tells us what potential there is in Transactional Analysis.
. I am not a psychologist, but I can give a job-description, or an algorithm, to those who know the details. The people who can develop Transactional Analysis further would also have to know NLP. Transactional Analysis is about Parent (C), Adult (B) and Child (A). That doesn’t include our body (D (E7)). We have to complement the A-B-C triad with the etheric body (D). With that addition the A-B-C triad becomes the A-B-C-D tetrad. I can think of nothing better to accomplish that than Network Spinal Analysis (NSP). It works with Vital Energy (E7).
. When I was a computer programmer (B) all I had to do is give my flowchart to Jim, my former partner, and he did the coding (C). And then the computer (D) did the rest. Is there somebody out there who will do the communicating not just for me, but for us? …
=========================================================
December 27, 2010
. On Pg. 154 James said:
. “Our inflexible universe is unlikely [made] …. by some imaginary intelligent designer.”
. Pg. 159:
“To think of us as the perfect of sentient life [as made in the image of God] is as absurd as to imagine that the first green photosynthesizers to emerge 3.5 billion years ago were also perfect. By evolving and changing they made possible everything that has happened since”. The photo synthesizers could not “evolve”, they had to be designed.
. That statement got me going on what J.G. Bennett had to say about photo-synthesis. Mr.B has met Gurdjieff in Turkey and there he had his vision (A) which he tried to describe in his DRAMATIC UNIVERSE. It must have been clear to him that whoever gave him the vision must also have produced the algorithm of which we see the flowchart-like diagram on page 137.
. Mr.B says: “We can confidently assert that some organizing influence was at work” to produce “THE STRUCTURE OF CHLOROPHYLL” and to give him the vision of which he could only give us a partial description in his DRAMATIC UNIVERSE series. He said that the series would have to be continued to do justice to the vision.
. Sill, if Chlorophyll was designed by an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient Creator then by 2009, when Lovelock’s book was published, more evidence of an intelligent designer should have come up by then.
. The term “intelligent design” only became better known by 1996 but even from the few quotes I have given from J.G Bennett’s book it is obvious that this is what Mr.B was talking about in 1966.
. On Pg. 162 James describes what happened according to Darwin: If some of us survive and in time merge with Gaia: “We could then look back in wonder at the miraculous evolution of the universe from blazing hot uniformity to a cold mass of simple chemicals, already selected by the cosmos to be the spare parts for life. Then wonder how these chemicals assembled themselves through a series of improbable steps into transient cycles as insubstantial as a house of cards and how the selection and concatenation of these simpler systems led [purely by chance] to the emergence of the first living cell. We could wonder why it took so long, nearly 3 billion years [And picking a large enough number of years will make the “improbable steps” seem probable], before the cells began to empower themselves as the assemblies that were the ancestors of animals and plants.” And only at this point can natural selection begin. THE STRUCTURE OF CHLOROPYLL could not be produced by a “miraculous evolution” Why? …
Because chlorophyll had no other life forms to compete with. There also was no reason to produce as complex structure such as chlorophyll without knowing what it would be used for in the future. Such knowledge of the past and the future could be called omniscience.
. Since 1966 more knowledge about the structure of chlorophyll must have come up by the time James wrote his book. And, if Mr.B was right in assuming that it had to be produced by a super-intelligent designer then the harder we try to understand it the more mysterious it will become for us.
. If you have followed me up to here then you might ask yourself, as I do: Does James really not know what was known since at least 1966 or is he being dishonest in order to avoid the “discomfort” of “cognitive dissonance or …
do the social engineers have something to do with it? …
. In the last section I have quoted from Volume four of J.G. Bennett’s DRAMATIC UNIVERSE. These quotes would be very nice to ask teachers who teach that the theory of intelligent design is wrong. So I looked for some more questions in that same volume students could ask of each other.
. Page 105:
“With our present knowledge of the immensity of the Creation, it seems reasonable to interpret the doctrine of creation as described in Genesis as referring specifically to the earth [to Gaia] and not to the whole universe.”
. On the same page in a footnote we get:
“There is much in this [Volume II] section that requires revision in the light of researches undertaken since Vol. II was written in 1957.” Vol 4 was published in 1966. The Vanishing Face of GAIA was published in 2009. So there shouldn’t be less, but more evidence in favour of the intelligent design theory.
. Page 106:
“As this chapter is being written, new developments are taking place in almost every field connected with the origin and development of life; and, by the time it is read, much will be out of date.” So more and more discoveries “connected with the origin and development of life” have to be rejected in order to avoid …
the “discomfort” of “cognitive dissonance”.
. Page 107:
. “We cannot hope to put forward a definitive array of facts. In some field, such as the origin and cause of great climate changes ….” Yes you can. How? …
By reducing any “dissonance by modifying or rejecting (Pg, 25)” any idea that causes “cognitive dissonance”. There are more questions to ask. But those who have to reject ideas in order to remain in their comfort zone invest a great amount of time and energy in devising means to defend their belief system. For instance, if you are a student and you ask a teacher questions that cause in him the “discomfort” he is in a better position to defend his “official version” of the subject than a fellow student might be. That is why I suggested to discuss the problem with fellow students rather than challenge teachers.
. In order to make this enquiry more productive, let me return to page 137, the one the diagram of THE STRUCTURE OF CHLOROPHYLL is on:
. “Hitherto we have assumed that an organizing pattern in eternity [that if from the time and space-less dimension] could be involved to account for the improbable events that initiated the life story of the earth. …. A supernatural act that sets aside the laws of physics and chemistry” would be required to explain the observable facts. Our creator would have to use his omnipotence to bring this about. But is that the only possible answer? …
Is omnipotence the only power the Creator has at his disposal? …
And is omnipotence the best choice? …
. Same paragraph:
“But now we seem to stand before a special kind of intelligence.” What kind? …
One that produces intelligent designs, like the flowchart on the same page. “we find an uncanny insight into the almost limitless possibilities they offer for brilliant manipulation of the material forces.”
. J.G. Bennett’s Volume four was published in 1966. By the time James published is Vanishing Face of Gaia in 2009, more facts about The Structure of Chlorophyll must have been available to him. Where is that information in his book? …
. Page 138:
:….”a more versatile agent [or designer] is required. We can picture an intelligence of a high order to see both what is required, and also the resources inherent in the situation”.
. If we know the construction business, or better still, the original computer programming business then we don’t have to “picture an intelligence of a higher order”, a contractor (C), who knows his job, will do just fine. He must know what the customer wants and what his subcontractors are able to do.
. This becomes even clearer in the computer programming business in which I have worked. So I am not giving you an abstract unproven theory but real down to earth experience. Originally I did the coding (C) myself because the original IBM 1401 machine language was so English-like and simple. But when my former partner, Jim, got me a job at Atlas Electronics, I didn’t know BASIC. He had to do the coding for me. To do my job, I had to know WHAT Jim could do. Every block in the flowchart I gave him to code had to be a subroutine he could do. A flowchart with blocks in it, the coder can’t translate into a string of instructions, is meaningless.
. To make this clearer, let us go down one dimension. Let us go down from the semantic dimension of semiotics (B) to the syntactic dimension (C).
. Jim gets my flowchart. If I know what he can do then he knows WHAT to do. And because he knows the BASIC computer language, he knows WHAT the computer (D) can do. As Jim doesn’t have to know why the blocks in the flowchart are in a certain order so the computer doesn’t have to know why the instructions come in a certain order. As the computer takes one instruction at a time and carries out what is required of it so Jim takes one block at a time and translates it into a string of instructions. Isn’t that simple? That’s why the original IBM programming system could be taught in seven weeks. And that’s why that system had to “disappear”. It was too simple. How can you dumb down the people when they understand HOW the terad works in practice? …
. In 1973 it was perfectly clear to me that the system was arbitrarily complexified. That’s why I quit. I thought they were stupid. I didn’t know better then. Now I do. They knew what they are doing all along. The Y2K disaster didn’t happen because there were still too many programmers left who knew how to fix it. Our political masters didn’t kill enough programmers. Now, if they put a virus into a black box, there is nobody who can fix it. Computer scientists are not taught how to program. They don’t know how the black boxes work, they are only taught to use them. That means that our political masters are in complete control of the system. If they want to shut it down, they can. But what they can do can’t be worse than what Gaia will do. And on this cheerful note I will stop.
===========================================================
December 26, 2010
. In the December 23 section I said: “Darwinism is to Creationism as Intelligent design is to Darwinism.” Syntactically (C) there is nothing wrong with that sentence but semantically (B) the subject has not been expressed properly. It should be: …
As Darwinism is to Creationism so is Intelligent design to Darwinism.
. This brings to mind Lao Tzu’s …
As above, in “Heaven, so Below (Tn_-)”, on earth. This phrase, or sentence, is in many chapters, but Ching 70 came to mind. Maybe I am supposed to give it to you again:
. . . . . . . . . . Ching 70:
My Words are Very Easy to Understand (myC2%tezkn)
Very Easy (%tez) if you Practice(pr) my lessons.
As (Tn_-) Nobody(MO) who doesn’t practice my lessons is
Able to Understand (abkn) them, so
Nobody(MO) who doesn’t understand an instruction is
Able to translate it into Practice (abpr). as
Words Have thoughts as their Ancestor (C2YU@4) so
Deeds Have words as their Master (D2YU#u).
He Who does-not Know (hehoWUkn) this much
ThereFore does Not Know “Me(me)” (SiYIPUmekn).
Know Me Ones (knmeer), those able to understand me, are Few(^e) but
Follow Me Ones (18neer), those willing to follow me, are even fewer (Ku).
TherFore the Wise Man (SiYIwsmn) wear Coarse-clothes(*a) and
beneath it he Hides(*b) his Pearls(#v).
*a = Ho145. *b = Huai61. In the conclusion of this chapter, Lao Tzu is telling his students: Don’t cast your pearls before those who don't want to hear the truth. They only waste your time and energy, and some of them are good at it. If somebody wants to learn my lessons then he must be willing and able to study them.
. Notice that here, as in Ching 14, the subject is what this chapter is about, the connective leads up to the conclusion and in the conclusion it is spelled out. Knowing the “TriAd(_3ad)” helps you to understand the chapters which are “TriAds”.
Let us continue with Lovelock’s book:
. Pg. 158:
“ …. The analytical approach to systems as complex as living beings [doesn’t work]. According to …. holistic schools which, phoenix like, are reborn in every generation, the analytical attitude (reductionist) is doomed to fail in its attempt to reduce the properties of a very complex organization to the ‘sum’ of the properties of the parts [The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.]. It is a very stupid and misguided quarrel which merely testifies to the …. total lack of understanding of scientific method and the crucial role analysis plays in it.”
. Students in our timocratic (C) educational system are “misguided” by social engineers who know very well how “stupid” the students have to be to believe (C) their “official version” of “science”. This is why the people have to be dumbed down first. No normal person would believe (C) that nonsense. Lao Tzu, J.G. Bennett and here James as well are talking about the “holistic schools”. Because of his training in university he can’t fully embrace the “holistic” theory but the “Insights(72)” he is talking about in this book can’t possibly be intended by his teachers.
. Pg. 159:
. “Perhaps the gravest error of monotheist religion, including Islam [Hinduism, as described in the Gita, and Taoism, as described in the Ching], is to believe that humans are made in God’s image.” His teachers will be proud of him for saying that.
. As “Above(_+)” so “Below(_-)”, as within so without. We are not omniscient, so we can’t know God the Way God knows himself, but we can know ourselves as well or better than the social engineers know us. By means of the Law of Correspondence we can know as much about God as we know about ourselves. One reason that should motivate us to study ourselves is the fact that our political masters don’t want us to do that. By making the IBM programming system (A-B-C-D) and semiotics (B-C-D) “disappear” they are telling us that they don’t want us to know the “Four(_4)” and “Three(_3)” term systems, which tells us that …
we should start there to find out that we are intelligently designed to evolve “in God’s image”. When you understand that then you know that what James is trying to make us believe is not true and you also know what caused him to say that. The “official version” of the truth stands up because authorities, like James, are supporting it. Once you remove one of these supports the whole system of lies collapses like a house of cards.
. Mat. 7:24:
. “Therefore ‘whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth [“Practices(pr)”] them I will liken him unto a wise man, which build his house upon a Rock. …. And everyone that [practices them not] shall be likened onto a ‘foolish man,’ which build his house upon sand”.
. Don’t believe (C) everything you are told even by people, like James, who have a lot of good things to say. Don’t build your house on sand. Before you believe (C) the “official version” of any thing, like 9/11 for instance, investigate, see the videos, think (B) about it. Before you build your believe system, or let the social engineers build it for you, make sure that the ground you, or they, build it on is solid “Enough(Zu)”.
. The quote continues: “….in God’s image. The implication is that we cannot through natural selection improve …. Is as absurd as to imagine that the first photosynthesisers to emerge 3.5 billion years ago were also perfect.”
. No, they may not have been perfect right away it might have been necessary to debug them like most complicated programs have to be. They certainly couldn't have evolved the Way Darwin has described it. But the analogy breaks down when it comes to sub-organisms of macro-organisms. It is not “absurd to imagine” that they had to be “perfect” because they had to be “perfect” in order to carryout the function they were “designed” to carryout. There was no way to test these sub-organisms like ordinary organisms. Why does an authority, like James, try to make us believe the “official version” of the truth? …
What we can learn from examples, like James, is that the social engineers are at it for a long time and that they know what they are doing, and …
that we are not supposed to know that the know what they are doing
. J.G. Bennett’s DRAMATIC UNIVERSE came to mind because I remembered that in it he was talking about “Photo-synthesis, 18, 20 . origin of, 135-9”. I found that reference in the INDEX of the last volume of his four volume work. This volume was published in 1966 and describes what scientists had discovered about “the first photosynthesisers”. This information was obviously available to James and in light of Mr.B’s description of it I found that photo-synthesis is not a good example to prove Lovelock’s point. Starting on page 18:
. “It must be understood that the level of order maintained by life on the earth is enormously greater than that of the relatively simple compounds that are the direct product of photosynthesis.” These “relatively simple compounds” would have been better examples of Darwin's natural selection but not photosynthesis. By 1966 it was clear that photosynthesis couldn't have come about by the process of natural selection and chance. James could have known better. The information that was available to J.G. Bennett was also available to James Lovelock. He could only believe (C) what he said in his book byu ignoring a few known facts.
. Same page of J.G. Bennett's book:
. “Now the significant point about life on the earth is its ability to maintain a higher level of order than that of the energies and substances on which it feeds …. . This point is so crucial for the whole of the argument that follows, that we must re-state it in precise terms.”
. Next page:
. “5. The level of order in the Biosphere within its own Present is enormously improbable. The odds against its arising by chance are thousands of millions to one.”
. How can a scientist, or any intelligent person, ignore these odds? …
. Page 135:
“First, there must be BODIES to enable the function of life to operate; and second, there must be supplies of ENERGY to make the bodies work. …”
. “It is impossible to doubt that the two problems were found” independently of each other, yet the problem had to be “solved in combination. It would have been useless to produce a self-renewing organism dependent upon food and not also ensure that food supplies were available.
. “The solution of the problem of self-renewal was found in amino-acid structures of such complexity that we had to invoke the organizing pattern [or intelligent design] to account for them. The problem of energy was solved by a very simple reaction – the separation of the hydrogen and oxygen of which water is made and the use of the hydrogen in conjunction with carbon-dioxide to make carbohydrates – that is sugars and starches. The difficulty in this case comes from the fact that a high concentration of energy in the right place and in the right form is needed to bring it about. The only source of energy readily available in sufficient quantity was solar [Next page starts here. Please put yourself into my shoes: How would you like typing all of this stuff. And how could you get this stuff across without quoting this? …] radiation. …. A strange, almost unbelievable, way round the difficulty was discovered. An extremely complex and most improbable compound of magnesium with nitrogen and the other elements of life – the chlorophyll that gives leaves their green colour -- …. Without it, life would disappear …. . If chlorophyll has always been necessary to support life – and all evidence goes to confirm this – where did the first chlorophyll come from?” ...
If you ask James that question then he might regret that he has tried to use photosynthesis as evidence against the intelligent design theory. But if you do it right, if you get him to ask himself: How did I come to believe some of the unscientific things I have said? …
If you get him to ask himself that question it could be the start of that house of cards, which is build on sand, to collapse
. Can the need to avoid the “discomfort” of “cognitive dissonance” be so strong to make oneself blind to these facts or do the social engineers have something to do with that? ...
As I see it, the only Way James can be brought to change his mind (C) is by helping him to understand (B) HOW the science of social engineers works.
. On page 137 is a half page diagram called “THE STRUCTURE OF CHLOROPHILL”
. “Fig. 44.3” looks to me like a symmetric flowchart. Same page:
. “No chemist, whatever his genius and his persistence, could have guessed that the structure depicted in Fig. 44.3. could perform such marvels. Even knowing how it is put together, chemist have not yet found out how to make it.
. “ When we remember that chlorophyll alone is helpless to perform its operation – it needs to be combined with a protective protein and support on a suitable body – the hypothesis of fortuitous arising seems more untenable than ever. We can confidently assert that some organizing influence was at work.”
. There is more scientific detail but why quote it all when James must already know it?
. I will return to page 136 for my last quote from MR.B’s book:
. “This remarkable structure [as can be seen from the diagram], so reminiscent of the tetrad with its four nitrogen atoms each linked with entirely different kinds of groups, can perform operations that surpass all the resources of modern science to emulate.”
. Can somebody please ask James why he picked this example to prove that there is no intelligent designer of this design? …
======================================================
December 24, 2010
. In yesterday’s section, below this one, the word “intergalactic” should be “interglacial”. Let me quote the whole sentence the word is in:
. Pg. 158:
. “What makes me raise religion is the looming crisis of the Earth, and how near the end of Gaia’s most recent intergalacial administration is; one that has lasted only 14,000 years.”
. An “intergalacial” period is from ice-age to iceage. That thought leads to another error I made in the diagram that is in the last section, below this one, …
“Cold” should be on top of the diagram. Everything is frozen stiff, not moving, the bob is at rest. Then it accelerates, the temperature gets hotter. Then the bob reaches …
maximum velocity. By analogy, the temperature reaches maximum heat. Then …
comes deceleration, the temperature gets colder. And then …
you can figure out the rest.
. The last thing I asked in the last section was: “So why does he, a scientist, refuse to even look at” the evidence which supports the intelligent design theory? …
If you have worked on that question, what answer did you come up with? …
The evidence biologists have come up with are sub-organisms in “superoranisms(Pg. 133)” which could not possibly have evolved by the method Darwin has described.
. I have nothing against Darwin but, after I saw the documentary on the intelligent design theory, I had no trouble to accept that there are things in biology Darwin couldn’t have known about because they were not discovered yet. And these things couldn’t be explained by his theory. I am not a biologist, so I can’t give you the scientific details but I have been a programmer of the old school which contains enough systems theory to make sense of what I saw in that documentary.
. We can compare competition in the market place with competition with other organism for survival in nature. The better mousetrap will sell and the producer of the poorer mousetrap will go belly up.
. Now, programmes have subroutines in them and some of them are as complex or more complex than other complete programs, which have to compete in the marketplace, are. They are demanded (A) because the program can’t work without them. They are like the links in a chain. Break one and you break the chain, weaken one, and the program will not work as efficiently as its competition does. The demand is like a problem statement. The program will not work without a certain subroutine. What now? …
Who produces the theoretical (B) solution in computer programming? …
In computer programming the theoretical solution is called an “ALGORITHM . Step-by-step specification of the solution to a problem terminating in a finite time. A problem is stated [the “problem-statement” of the customer (A)], an algorithm [B] is developed for the solution, and the algorithm is then represented by a flowchart. The flowchart is finally translated into a program” (C), and the program is executed by the computer (D).
. The quote comes from the “International MICROCOMPUTER DICTIONARY” published in 1981. This definition must have somehow slipped through the cracks because by 1981 the social engineers had already made the original IBM computer programming system “disappear”. But if you can see why they had to make it disappear, then we can actually benefit from that. As Lao Tzu said at 41.1,3 and 4: When “Below average Scholars (_-Ün) Hear the Truth (^dA1) thy will Greatly Ridicule It (TA*a_Z). if they do Not Ridicule (PU*a) it then we Don’t have Enough (PUZu) Means To find out the Truth (YIdoA1).” *a = Hsiao118. In this context, this character represents any effort by these “Below average Rulers” to prevent us from “Finding-out the Truth”. The good news we get from Lao Tzu is that these efforts can be counterproductive for them.
. So we know from computer programming and semiotics that subroutines don’t evolve by competing with other programs.
. In the book INTRODUCING Semiotics Charles Morris is covered from pages 105 to 114 and once more on page 118. Doing some selective reading, we can get some valuable information in those pages.
“…. His observation and distinctions makes his work in semiotics a source of stimulation that has few equals in the history of this field.” But such a “source” is also a treat to our political masters.
“…. Language can be understood as a set of substitute responses to given stimuli.” As individuals, we can move directly from thought (B) to action (D) In the computer programming system, computer language (C) must mediate between theory (B) and practice (D). That is why Morris has come up with three dimensions of semiotics. In fact, in light of systematics, semiotics is the B-C-D triad. The text continues: “…. stimuli. Moreover, these responses are observable in the light of human behaviour”, in the light of the response (D) to the response (C) to thought (B). So here “behaviour” is identical to Epstein’s “BEHAVIOUR”. “…. ‘behaviour’ consists of … any change taking place in an organism which has a beginning and a final goal”. The Aristotelian “final cause” and Mr.B’s GOAL (A) are not the “material cause” (D). They are the customer’s description of the “final goal”. The customer’s demand (A) is the first step in the 4-fold process.
. On pages 110 and 111 are some syntactic (C) definitions: “AN INTERPRETER = the organism for which something is a sign” (C). AN INTERPRETANT = disposition caused by a sign in the interpreter to participate in a response-sequence.”
. “This schema provides the basis for Morris’ understanding of the sign as ‘something that directs behaviour ….’”. Language (C) is the means to direct behaviour in an interpreter. Language mediates between theory (B) and practice (D).
. On page 118 we have what I consider Morris’ major contribution: “Confronting the complexity of semiosis Morris had divided semiotics into three discrete areas”: SEMANTICS (B), SYNTACTICS (C) and PRAGMATICS (d). There is only half a page of text. The other half is pictures. And the three definitions of thought (B), word (C) and deed (D) are not worth quoting. Is that done on purpose? …
Simplification of any subject is definitely a threat to our political masters. And interpreters of these theories can be programmed to cause the “discomfort” of “Cognitive Dissonance”. Jacques Derrida and his “différance” got more space. And I am not the only one who is convinced that he doesn’t deserve it.
. This brings us back to the question: Why does John refuse to look at the evidence which supports the intelligent design theory? …
People, in general, prefer to stay in their own comfort zone. To accept facts which contradict their “belief system (Pg. 157)” causes “cognitive dissonance” and thus “the feeling of discomfort (Pg. 25)”. Belief systems are systems of ideas (B) which have become representations (C). Belief systems can only be challenged by true ideas (B) which have become representations (C). Knowledge (B) of the truth has no chance against beliefs (C) because it is too weak and too slow. The thinking we do in the heart can be compared with computing. What we know by heart is what the mind (C) works with, with Automatic Energy (E6).
. In that Saturday of December 11 the participants were not talking about ideas (B) but about representations (C). Because they had stepped down E5 to E6 they could do what was very revealing to me. This why they could make associations I couldn’t make. I am still, almost two weeks later, benefiting from that seminar. There is too much to explain. So I better stop here.
========================================================
December 23, 2010
. This morning at 6:20 AM I had an “Insight(72)”. As usual it came in a fraction of a second but unlike the one I had December 12 it doesn’t take as long and as much space in this blog to describe it. The insight was that I can use the pendulum as a model to describe Lovelock’s hot and cold cycles. And there it is. But let me
. . . . . . . .Heat . . . . . . . . . .elaborate a bit more, diagram and all.
to heat . . . . . . Transition . The bob of the pendulum is at Rest
from cold . + . from heat . .on top of the vertical line. It accelerates
Transition . . . to cold . . . . until it it reaches the bottom of the
. . . . . . . .Cold . . . . . . . . . vertical line. At that point all potential
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . energy has been converted into kinetic energy. At the ends of the horizontal line the energy is in balance, 50/50. In the four quadrants between the four points there is the transition from one state to the next. That would be Lovelock's “intergalactic” periot of “only 14,000 years”. The Hindu yugas are 12,000 years.We have the Cartesian plane here.
December 22, 2010
. We are still on page 151 of James Lovelock’s VANISHING FACE OF GAIA:
. “The disease that afflicts the Earth is not just climate change -- manifest by drought, heat and an ever rising sea. Added to this there is the changing chemistry of the air and the ocean, and the way the sea grows acidity. Then there is the shortage of food for all consumers …. As important is the loss of that vital biodiversity that enables the working of the ecosystem. All these affect the working of the Earth’s operating system and are the consequences of too many people. ….”
. As you can see, this last chapter is some kind of summary. It would have to be quoted in full. The quotes I have picked are not necessarily the best, but if they will get you interested in the book, they will have been as good as any.
. Pg. 153:
. “So how and why does this happen this way? The universe …. Seems run by a most inflexible set of rules and we, as curious animals, have tried to list them …. Proud scientists seem to think that soon they will solve the puzzle and know the rules that run the universe with their theory of everything.” And Ervin Laszlo’s SCIENCE and the AKASHIC FIELD is one of them. But if you Google him you find that he sounds very much like James sounds in this book. Some scientists are waking up, but the majority are still asleep. How come? …
. Same page:
. “Perhaps the selfish genes” are at fault. But later James brings it down to the training we have received in early childhood. There, in impressionable minds representations can be implanted by skillful social engineers. There is a reason why private Kindergarten are driven out of business by red tape and replaced by government run institutions.
. Pg.154:
. “Our inflexible universe is unlikely to be an imposition or limitation to our freedom set by some imaginary intelligent designer”. James has spoken out against the theory of intelligent design before. Why is he rejecting it? …
. Same paragraph:
“Utter chaos, …., not freedom, is the consequence of a universe without rules.” But what is wrong with the theory of intelligent design? …
Who made the “rules” or natural laws? …
. Pg. 156:
. “Nothing that I have read in a long life better explains our agonizing condition – we have the intelligence to begin to expand our minds to understand life, the universe and ourselves; we can communicate and exchange our deep thoughts …. We have all this but are quite unable to live with one another or with our living planet. Our inherited urge to be fruitful and multiply …. Thwarts our best intentions.”
. There isn’t much I could skip here without losing the train of thought.
. Next paragraph:
. “Intelligence is not a gift from God or the gods; It has evolved by Darwin’s rules of selection ….” Here I don’t even have to copy the full premise. Why? …
If it is wrong, then necessarily the connective and the conclusion are wrong as well.
. Darwinism is to Creationism as Intelligent design is to Darwinism. The Creator has left most of his creation to take place according to the rules of natural selection as Darwin has described it. So the Creationists are wrong and Darwin is right. But are they completely wrong?
. Biologists have investigated super-organisms. “A superorganism is something that includes individual organisms but exists as a recognizable entity. (Pg. 133)”. Any super, or individual organism is competing for life according to Darwin’s rules. But the “individual organisms” in the “superorganism” don’t evolve that way. They are parts of the superorgganism And if the parts don’t function the whole can’t unction, it can’t compete. According to Darwin’s rules any organism that is less efficient than the organisms it has to compete with for survival can’t survive.
. The question is now how did the sub-organisms in the super-organism evolve? …
It couldn’t possibly evolve according to Darwin’s rules. So Darwin is wrong and the Intelligent design theorists are right. But we already know that Darwinists, like James, are not completely wrong.
December 23, 2010.
. Pg. 185:
. “As a child my religious education was from the Society of Friends and as a student I became a Friend and I remained one until about 1947, when the agnosticism of science captured me for good.”
. I want to end this section with three questions:
1. Why doesn’t James use the “Flood” and Noa’s Arc to back up his theory? ...
2. Why doesn’t he point out the similarities between his Gaia and the God of Genesis? ...
3. The scientific proof of the intelligent design theory exists. So why does he, a scientist, refuse to even look at it? …
==========================================================
December 21, 2010
. In the last December 20 section there is a mistake. Here is the corrected version: ‘You can’t decide on something if you don’t know what it is, if you don’t know what you are deciding on.’
. In that same section I said: “…. And ‘Only Then (Ja4R)’, when you step down E5 to E6, can you make use of it.” This is not a mistake, but listen to the interesting idea that came to me: I have made use of the B-C-D triad in the outer world, in computer programming, but the EPSTEIN TRIAD OF CHANGE is about an inner CHANGE.
. Back to Lovelock’s book:
. Pg. 140: . . . . . . . . . “ 9
. . . . . . . . . . . TO THE NEXT WORLD”
. Same page:
. “To communities of fishermen living on the coast of South-East Asia 14,000 years ago, the unstoppable rise of the ocean level must have been heartbreaking …. The wiser ones must have moved to higher ground, [Page 150 starts ere] and some of them were our ancestors.” If our ancestors had the means of producing carbon dioxide at the rate we are able to produce it now, and if they were foolish enough to do that, then …
there wouldn’t be any ancestors, and then …
there wouldn’t be us.
. The text continues: “…. Ancestors. As large a change in our environment …. soon due, will be as pitiless, and eventually, in a few hundred years, will lead to a new stable climate.” Who is calling James Lovelock a “fear-monger”? Stop interfering with Gaia for “a few hundred years”, so that Gaia can control the Earth system again, and it “will lead to a new stable climate.” What is the alternative to that? …
Slow down “global heating”, by geoengineering, so that we can all continue “business as usual” and we will all be dead. Now, this information may not be very nice but these are the facts. And denying them doesn’t make them go away.
. Pg. 150:
. “The recognition that we are the agents of planetary change brings a sense of guilt and gives environmentalism a religious significance. So far it is no more than a belief system that has extended the concept of pollution and ecosystem destruction from the local to the planetary scale [“Think globally, act locally.”, as they say]. Maybe it will grow into a faith but it is still nascent and its dogma not yet properly codified. An environmentalist with a religious inclination might ask, ‘Was the discovery and use of fire our original sin? Were we sinful to continue to pollute the planet? For most of us the contrite expression of ‘Mea culpa’ in a deep green voice is not appropriate. We know that we have made appalling mistakes but we have cast aside the old idea that we are born evil and now acknowledge that the whims of our fickle natures were amplified by technology, so that like a drunkard driving a tank we have accidentally trashed our world. Guilt is inappropriate; we seek restitution and restoration of our lost world, not punishment.”
. Once I start typing such a significant paragraph, I have to complete it because nothing I would say about it can add anything to it; and cutting it short is only going to detract from it. Try to predict what I can say about the paragraph as a whole. …
Hint: Take the concept of freedom of choice: …
If God is omnipotent (E1?), omnipresent (E2?) and omniscient (E3?). And if he has given us the freedom of choice, can he interfere with our freedom? …
A good example of respect for the law of non-interference happened to me in India: Jagad Guru Shri Kripalu Mahaprabhu doesn’t speak English but he asked me: “Do you give me permission to help you?” I can put these words in quotes because I heard him ask me that question, and he was waiting for my answer. Had I shook my head instead of nodding he could not have helped me. Those who know this law will not interfere with our freedom of choice. But ignorance of the law does not invalidate it. Depriving the members of the German and Canadian Green Parties of heir right to make the decisions is a sin, whether our political masters know it or not.
. I have said this already yesterday, but this is worth “Repeating”. The consensus decision-making process is accomplishing three things: 1: Community-building, 2: Education. You can’t decide on something if you don’t know what it is about. And 3: Decisions made BY the people FOR the people. To assume that decisions made BY our political masters are FOR us is naive.
. Coming back to our freedom of choice: If God is omniscient then he must have planned all of this. So where is our freedom of choice? …
Don’t ask me, but I still think that this is a very good question. …
. Same page:
. “Even if we had time, and we do not, …. it would not work.” Why? …
Because God seems to have something else in mind. What is it? …
Even though James doesn’t claim to be a philosopher, he keeps telling us that primarily he is a scientist. But in his book, the answer keeps coming up. …
God doesn’t want to destroy us completely. To destroy humanity completely would undo millions of years of work and, according to James, there may not be another chance to repeat this experiment. That eventuality would be serious “Enough(Zu)” for God to interfere with us. And if he is omnipot, he can. Boy we are really getting into philosophy (B) here. Somebody has to verify or to falsify this theory (B).
. Pg. 151:
“….Those events hundreds of thousands of years ago mark the time when we broke the rules of Gaia and our numbers grew out of control. We have broken them ever since.”
. Every scientist knows that if an experiment gets out of control, it has to be stopped. If God is conducting this experiment and if he is omniscient and omnipotent then …
he is going to stop that experiment. The logical question is when he is going to stop it? ...
Lovelock’s answer is that it is “soon due”.
. Same page:
. “When we are first infected by fatal disease organisms, they grow in our bodies without us noticing. We call this the incubation period, and it can be as long as several weeks. Then at some stage in their growth, or in our bodily reaction to it, we feel unwell, with fever and pain, in a matter of hours …. We collapse and die.”
. Now, isn’t that nice? …
I mean the clarity in which it is described. Same page:
. “We became the Earth’s infection a long and uncertain time ago”. We are the deadly viruses. But the analogy between an ordinary doctor and God breaks down. Why? …
Let us ignore God’s omnipotence and omniscience for the moment and focus only on his omnipresence. Identify the monad. …
. Where is God in terms of what we have learned in the last few sections? …
Go to Sutra 14. …
“PURUSHA IS COVERED BY FIVE KOSHAS”. They are A, B, C, D and E8. Where is the PURUSHA? …
“PURUSHA IS COVERED BY” by us. It is in us. According to James, we are the deadly viruses. But if God is omnipotent and omnipresent in us is he going to destroy himself? We can change our mind about killing the Earth system because God has given us our freedom of choice. If the deadly viruses change their mind about killing us then we have a different situation to the one ordinary doctors have to deal with. This idea must be expressed better. It is a brand new one. Came to me about three hours ago. How do you like it.? …
. The last quote continues: “….time ago when we first used fire and tools purposefully, but it was not until about two hundred years ago that the long incubation period ended and the Industrial Revolution began; then the infection of the Earth became irreversible.” And the analogy holds as long as God does not interfere with our freedom of choice. But will he continue to let us continue with “business as usual” when that means the end of his creation? …
. I have left you with something to think about. …
=======================================================
December 20, 2010
. In the last, December 18, section I said that there is a book “by J.G. Bennett called ENERGY”. The title of his book is not “ENERGY” but ENERGIES. I guess that I was supposed to give his book another plug. As semiotics is the B-C-D Triad so systematics is the E1-E2-E3 ….E12 Dodecad.
. Another mistake is in the next paragraph. Here is the correction: “If the social engineers are not creating the bottleneck …. then the “Big(TA)” “TriAd(_3ad)” would be working properly.”
. Two paragraphs later I said: “…. The physical body (D) ….the Etheric body (D) …. That was a mistake and I was aware (A) of it.” That is not quite true. I was aware of the problem but I didn’t make it as clear as I did here.
. Earlier on I said: that “the participants of that seminar …. Were …. Looking at the EPSTEIN TRIAD OF CHANGE from …. The emotional centre (C) and I from the intellectual centre (B).” That statement is likely to be misinterpreted unless you know how hard it is to intentionally step down ideas (B) to representations (C).
8a: If you are “Able to Align (ab%8) with the level above your own, then you will be
. . Able to be Tranquil (ab^a).” And
8b: “Only Then (Ja4R) will you be Able to do the Fixing (ab8b).”
. 4R = Hou30. 8b = Ting40, it is also in Ching 37: Those in “Heaven and Below (Tn_-) it (on levels B, C and D) Will by themSelves Fix (41Tu*a)” themselves.
. *a = Ting40: “To fix, stop; determine; tranquil”. To intentionally “Fix”, or step down, Sensitive Energy (E5) to Automatic Energy (E6) takes a lot of intentional “Repetitions”. The picture for Ting(8b) is Chêng(%8) under a “Roof(Rad. 40)”. It implies: Bringing an Idea (B) home, turning it into a representation (C). From the added detail I have given you here, you can hopefully see that the statement in the last section was not intended to be derogatory. On the contrary, my own representation of the B-C-D triad is preventing me from making the EPSTEIN TRIAD my own. And “Only Then (Ja4R)”, when you step down E5 to E6, can you make use of it.
. A picture is worth a thousand words, and there is a picture of the Buddha’s 8-fold path in the last section. He starts at the crossover point of the figure 8, which is the X in the diagram. Then comes thought, word and deed (B-C-D) and then we are crossing across the X into the upper cycle (E1-E2-E3). And then …
we come back to point X again. I have just “Repeated(@1)” a few details you already know. Back to Lovelock’s book.
. Pg. 134: “8
. . . . . . TO BE OR NOT TO BE GREEN”
. In This chapter James describes his successful and unsuccessful attempts to be green. Good reading.
. Pg. 140
. “The Lovelocks have been slow in the approach to a true Gaian lifestyle and the path to virtue is littered with foolish mistakes.”
. But as long as we learn from them, there will be progress.
. Pg. 141:
. “Slowly, you see, we had become about as environmentally virtuous as was practical, but realized that it was probably not enough.” What is “Enough(Zu)”? …
. Pg. 147:
. “Nigel Lawson suggests that the present-day green movement is a new religion.” It can be called that because our political masters have taken the right of the members of the green parties, to make the decisions, away from us. The consensus decision-making process accomplishes three things: 1: Community building, 2: Education. You can decide on something if you don’t know what you are deciding on. And 3: Decisions which are made BY the people FOR the people. Or do you still believe that our political masters care about us? …
. Pg. 148, the last page of chapter 8:
. “Much too slowly some begin to understand that the welfare of Gaia is more important than the welfare of humankind.” This outrageous statement is based on the facts presented in this book.
. We have completed the second last chapter of the book and the message that comes through again and again is that we can’t do it alone. We are all affected by what is happening to our planet and we must collectively get our act together to do something about it. At least, as James says very clearly “to buy some time”. Delaying the heat from killing most of us is not the solution. Why? …
Because it will only insure the death of all of us. Isn’t that a cheerful bock to read? …
Please do. …
=======================================================
December 18, 2010
. In yesterday’s section I said: “This will have to do for Ching 14.” This may well be true because Lao Tzu can speak for himself and I don’t know it all, but it will not do for the lessons I have learned in that Saturday seminar. The text continues: “…. Ching 14. Back to Lovelock’s book.
. Pg. 133:
'Lorenz and May were both looking at the Earth system from within separated'” points of view. Similarly the participants of that seminar and I were both looking at the EPSTEIN TRIAD OF CHANGE from different points of view: They from …
the emotional center (C) and I from the intellectual center (B). Also the triads we were looking at are not identical. I am glad that I pointed out that “the B-C-D triad” can’t be identified with the EPSTEIN TRIAD “without forcing it a bit”.
. The diagram of their triad has the point at which the two slanted lines meet on top. Outside the slanted lines are the words “PERCEPTION” and “BEHAVIOUR” and below the horizontal line we have “STRUCTURE”. And inside the triad is the word ”ENERGY”. I assume that this is the energy you can feel even before their fingers touch your body. Identify the monad! …
Students of systematics do that automatically. …
There is a book by J.G. Bennett called ENERGY. Mr.B has “Identified(Mg)” the 12 divisions of the Dodecad. The identifiers are: E1, E2, E3, …. E12. The “Name(Mg)” for E3 is Creative Energy, for E4 it is Conscious Energy (A), for E5 it is Sensitive Energy (B), for E6 it is Automatic Energy (C), for E7 it is Vital Energy (D), for E8 it is Constructive Energy. This will have to do. E3 and E8 are outside of our human sphere of influence, but E3 enters our system as a demand and E8 leaves our system as the supply. In other words, we are the …
Connective between demand and supply. If the social engineers are not creating the bottleneck that is holding us back, “Big(TA)” “TriAd(_3ad)” would be working properly. Our “Task(D2)” is now to “Identify the IdentifiAble (MgptMg)”! …
Which one of the twelve energies is the ENERGY in Epstein’s triad? …
The Theosophists, and Steiner as well, talk about an Etheric body. What level is that on? …
I have been with the Theosophists from 1957 to 1973 so I knew that there is a problem with Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)”, and consequently with the Aristotelian tetrad. I have ignored that problem because I was not ready for it. Now I am forced to face it. What level is the Etheric body on? …
Does its energy produce the “efficient cause” (C)? …
Does it produce the “material cause” (D)? or? …
Or is it the holon between the two? …
In Theosophy, our most concrete body is the physical body (D). Then, above that, a bit more “Subtle(Jo)”, comes the Etheric body (D). Notice that I have identified both bodies with the same letter. That was a mistake, and I was aware (A) of it. But trying to deal with that problem before I was ready for it would have been a problem as well. I would have bitten off more than I could chew and wasted a lot of time and energy as a result of that.
. More recently, in this blog, I have worked on the E8-D-C triad. If I have to identify the monads of this triad in terms of Mr.B’s twelve energies, I would have to say that here we have the E8-E7-E6 triad. Here E8 is the “material cause”, or the material body, E7 is the etheric body, E6 is the astral body. In Theosophy the etheric body is also compared to a mold, which gives shape to our physical body.
. Above E6 is E5, the causal body and E4 can be called our spiritual body. It is what the Hindus call “the Door, Dasamadwara”.
. Above E4 (A) we have the E1-E2-E3 triad and below it is the thought, word and deed (B-C-D) triad, or semiotics. This is why it is so important for us to understand semiotics. And that would be why our political masters had to make it “disappear”. We can learn from Ching 41.1 that by making it “disappear” they are letting us know what they don’t want us to know, which tells us that …
we must try to understand it. In Sutra 14, the E1-E2-E3 triad would be the “Purusha”, E4 “HEART ….the seat of bliss, ANANDA, is called ANANDAMAYA KOSA.”
. E5 “BUDDHI …. The seat of knowledge, LNANA, it is called JNANAMAYA KOSHA.”
. E6 “MANAS ….the Mind composed of the organs of sense, …., and called the MANOMAYA KOSHA.”
. E7 “PRANA …. The body of energy, life force or PRANA, composed of the organs of action, …. And thus called PRANAMAYA KOSHA.”
. E8 “GROSS MATTER, ….ANNA, nourishment, supports this visible world and thus is called the ANNAMAYA KOSHA.”
. If Purusha is E1-E2-E3, then we have here the first eight energies. That would be 8 down, 4 to go.
. . . . . . . . . I have already described the Budda’s 8-fold path before but
. .E10. . . . “Repeating(@1)” such an important concept can’t be a
E11+ E9 . . mistake. The Buddha was a Hindu before he became the
. . .X . . . . . Buddha. So we can assume that he knew what I have quoted
E7 .+ E5 . . above. As I said before, we can start at any point of an
. . E6 . . . . . N-Term system. The Buddha has started at E4 because that’s
. . . . . . . . . where our human sphere of influence, and responsibility begins. E4 is vision (A), E5 is thought (B), E6 is speech (C), E7 is physical action (D), E8 is right livelihood, or dharma, E9 is contemplation, E10 is meditation, E11 is concentration and E12 is? …
. Don’t ask me. J.G Bennett has DISPERSED ENERGY (E12). And what is E1, E2 and E3? …
In Sutra 13, Swami Sri Yukteswar calls E1: “ANAMA, the Nameless”. E2 is: “AGAMA, the Inaccessible” and E3 is “ALACSHYA, the Incompreensible.”, and next comes “the Door” (E4). Mr.B has “Transcendent Energy” (E1), “Unitive Energy” (E2) and “Creative energy” (E3). This “all-important Creative Energy is the source of all human creativity” and when it comes to us through E4 (A) it usually comes with the demand to be manifested (D) or at least to be expressed (C) on my blog. What the communicators do or not do with it is no longer my responsibility. If I let it bother me, and I do, it is merely draining my energy.
. E2, “the unitive energy …. It is by this energy that everything is being constantly integrated and made whole.” To be as creative as possible, we, as thinkers (B), as communicators (C) as doers (D) must concentrate on our own dharma. Nothing is gained by being a jack of all trades, we must concentrate on our own job. That is our “duty (dharma)” here on earth. Here on earth we are autonomous wholes. But within the larger whole we are interdependent parts.
. E1 “is still more incomprehensible for us, because we can neither know its action nor know how it is organized in the universe. It concerns us only on the ground that a significant whole [an N-Term system] must contain at least all that is significant in its parts.” Break one link of a chain and you break the chain.
. This will have to do for today.
==========================================================
December 17, 2010
. When the EPSTEIN TRIAD OF CHANGE is read in the semiotic sequence, first comes PERCEPTION. As I said before, this triad can’t be related to the B-C-D triad without forcing it a bit. Help comes from THE HOLY SCIENCE: The JnanEndriyas are our five senses (D), but Jnana (B) means knowledge (B). Also, in order to perceive an intuition (A), it must be “Identified(Mg)” (B). So even though PERCEPTION (D) is done with our physical senses, there are also “Subtler(Jo)” perceptions, which are done with the intellect (B).
The outcome of this process is clearly BEHAVIOR (D), which follows the talking (C), which follows the thinking (B).
. The presenter of the seminar, on Saturday, told us that if you know two parts of the triad the third part will fall into place by itself. This is pure systematics, they just don’t call it that. So where does STRUCTURE fit into the B-C-D triad? …
. All B-C-D triads are analogous to each other. We have them in the IBM computer programming system, in the construction business, every standard indicative sentence is a B-C-D triad and so is Ching 14. The first 33 character paragraph is the initiating impulse, the next 44 character paragraph is the connective and the last 17 character paragraph is a description of the outcome of the process. What is the outcome here? …
The “Ability to Understand(abkn)” the “Tao” by studying the “TriAd(_3ad)”. The connective is “Always(Cn)” a holon, it is a bit of both poles of the “DyAd(dyad)” of the “TriAd(_3ad)”. Every “TriAd” consists of a “Monad($1)” and a “DyAd” (+- or -+). Let me give you the last two sentences of the holon: “
Confront It (*d_Z) and you Can’t See (PUoo) Its Beginning (_H@M);
Follow It (#e_Z) and you Can’t See (PUoo) Its End (_H60).” *d = Ying162.
. See how easy it is to translate Lao Tzu’s words? …
Well there is a lot of syntactic (C) work involved but with some practice it becomes automatic. To do the translations you don’t have to think (B). Computing (C) is much more efficient. But to figure out what our teacher means, we have to do our homework. So what does the pronoun “It(_Z)” in these two sentences mean? …
Asking the right questions helps. Try to come up with one. …
Does the “It” refer to “The TriAd (Tz_3ad)” we have at 14.1? …
Does the “It” refer to the “Tao” in 14.3? …
Does “It” refer to both, the “TriAd” and the “Tao”? …
Please think before looking up my answer. ...
You can’t “Get(gt)” it without thinking. …
Because the connective is “Always(Cn)” a holon, the “It” refers to both. The connective is a transition from premise to conclusion. It helps us to “Get(gt)” it before comparing our answer with Lao Tzu’s answer. Trying to follow Lao Tzu’s line of thought converts you from a reader to a student. Neiye ten comes to mind:
0e: “One Word Grasped (_1C2gt)
0f: And those in Heaven [B] and Below [C and D] it will Submit (btTn_-Üz).”
0g: “One Word Fixed (_1C28b), stepped down to the next lower level,
0h: And Heaven Below (btTn_-), those on levels B, C and D, will Listen(*c)” to that “One Word” from level A. *c =: “To hear, listen, obey; smell”.
. Listening is half of communication (C) the other half is talking. If the “WordErs Don’t Know (C2erPUkn)” what their job is then, even though the “KnowErs are Not good with Words (knerPUC2)”, people have to put up with them. If one link in a chain is weak, the whole chain is weak. Social engineers know that, but do we have to allow politicians (C) to create that bottleneck? …
There have to be Ways to get around the communicators (C) who seem to be on a permanent strike. There have to be others who have that talent, who just haven’t developed it yet. They can become strike-breakers, who, after some practice, will be well qualified to do the job. For a “Potential(pt)” writer (C) it should be easy to do better than I am doing here.
. This will have to do for Ching 14. Back to Lovelock's book.
. Pg. 133:
“Lorenz and May were both looking at the Earth system from within separated scientific disciplines that took cause-and-effect determinism for granted.” When the knowledge (B) of the “disciplines”single tightly coupled systems are taught to you in university by teachers who have been taught by teachers who have been programmed by social engineers, your knowledge (B) will have become representations (C). Since that programming is done, or controlled, by social engineers it is very difficult to “DeProgramme(PUÜd)” yourself. They know what they are doing and you are not supposed to even suspect what they are doing. But Lao Tzu points out Ways “By-means-of-which you can Find-out the Truth (YIdoA1)”.
. The text continues: “….granted. Yet if instead we look at climate and population growth as a single tightly coupled system we find the combined model is resilient to perturbations and makes credible predictions.”
. James is talking systematics here, even though he may not call it that. The fact that science is coming around to it tells me that Lao Tzu and J.G. Bennett have been on the right track all along.
. Same page:
. “A superorganism is something that includes individual organisms but exists as a recognizable entity.” More systematics. An N-Term system is a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. The whole emerges through its parts and, having emerged, gives meaning to them. My understanding of the “TriAd(_3ad)” is primarily due to my understanding of the tetrad. I have gained that understanding from nine years of working with the tetrad. Since the B-C-D triad is a part of the tetrad, the tetrad can give meaning to it. And, since semiotics is the B-C-D triad, see Morris, I knew that Derrida was selling us an “official version” of semiotics. If you know an N-Term system then even the best social engineer can’t make you believe that you don’t know it. When you really understand something it automatically becomes a representation (C).
. “Intelligent People (wsmn) are Not Stupid (PU@p) Because-of This Ping Ping (YI_H@p@p), because they know and know that they know. That(Si) is Why(YI) they are Not Stupid (PU@p).” No matter how good a social engineer may be, he can’t make you believe that what you know to be true is false.
. The text continues “…. entity. It is a category that includes the colony nests of social insects and human cities. The concept of the superorganism could provide a helpful step from stark individualism of the selfish gene to the all inclusive holism of Gaia.”
. There we have more systematics on the same page. It is some kind of summary of the chapter because this is its last page.
============================================================
December 15, 2010
. The last two sections, below this one, are about an “Insight(72)”, what led up to it and the outcome of that insight. The line of thought, described in the two sections started on Sunday December 12 at about 4 AM. Insights are something “IdentifyAble(ptMg)”. Lao Tzu teaches this lesson as follows: He says:
“Identify the IdentifiAble (MgptMg)”! Carrying out this instruction produces the “Opposite(Fy)” of the “IdentifiAble”. And only now can Lao Tzu give his students the next instruction. Which is? …
“Name the NamAble (MgptMg)”! You can’t name something if you don’t know what it is, if you have not “Identified(Mg)” it. Lao Tzu teaches this lesson in six words: …
“Ming Potential Ming to produce its Opposite, the Actualized Ming (MgptMgFyCnMg)”!
. In the Ching, Ming means two things: “Identify” and “Name” So, to translate it, you either translate the same sentence twice, because in Chinese it means both, or you leave the character, which means more than one thing, un-translated. But even then I couldn’t translate Ch’ang(Cn) accurately because that would have created more confusion and I don’t want to get into that right now.
. This lesson is at Ching 1.1,2 (Chapter 1, paragraph 1, sentence 2). Ching 1.1,1 can be read as Lao Tzu’s introduction to his book: My “Tao Can be Taoed (A1ptA1) But-Not(Fy) in the Usual Way (CnA1).” Identify is not a “Usual(Cn)” or dictionary equivalent but the context at Ching 47 demands it. So even though it is “Not a Usual (FyCn)” equivalent, it is a valid equivalent in the Ching and whenever this character comes up, we must try on each equivalent for size. Yes, Lao Tzu gives is students lots of work to do, and this lesson is in the very first paragraph of his textbook. So if you don’t learn the first lesson, how are you going to learn the second one? …
. I had to burden you with this bit of detail to give you some idea of the kind of work that has to go into the study of any chapter, and right now we are going to work a bit more on Ching 14.1: The first two characters in it mean: “Look at It (#M_Z)”! ...
How can we look at “It(_Z)” when we don’t know what “It” is? …
Some translators got closer than others. The Carus/Suzuki team has: “We look at Reason (#M_Z)”. The dictionary equivalent of Shih(#M) is “To look, see, regard”. And Chih(_Z) is a pronoun. And this team has substituted Reason for the Tao throughout. At 1.1,1 they have “The Reason that can be reasoned is not the eternal reason (A1ptA1FyCnA1).”
. In Ching 14, the “Tao(A1)” only appears in the last paragraph. Let me give you their translation of it:
. 6. “By holding fast to the Reason of the ancients [3230_ZA1], the present is mastered and the origin of the past understood [YI*e#Q_ZYUabkn30B1]. This is called Reason’s clue” (SiisA1*f). *e = Yu60. *f = Chi120. The equivalents we get from Star for Chi(*f) are interesting: “main thread / ‘unbroken strand’ / ‘strand running trough’ // lineage tradition / continuity / ‘initiation’ / discipline / ‘main body of tradition’”.
. There are 33 characters in the first paragraph, 44 in the second and 17 in the last one. In the December 12 section I have given you my translation of Richard Wilhelm‘s translation. There you have two translations you can compare. Of course the more translations you have to compare the better an idea you get of what is in the original. This is what you will have to do with the 44 character connective.
. Going over the December 12 section again, the quote from James Legge’s commentary on this chapter stands out: Let me paraphrase it: Paragraph 1 is about the “operation” of the “Tao”. Is “not” about “the primal conception of it” as we are getting in Ching 25 and which is also referred to at Ching 14.3. So the “TriAd(_3ad)” enables us to “Understand(kn)” the “strand running through” from its “Conception(B1)” (B) to its manifestation (D). The connective between the “operation” of the Tao and the Tao “rises before the mind in the second paragraph.” Isn’t that a nice Way of putting it? …
December 16
. This is as far as I got on Wednesday December 15. On Wednesdays I go to my NSP therapy sessions at 1:30 and then at night I go to Fat Albert's, which is an open stage were I play the bongos with the performers who give me permission to join them.
. Let us, then, continue by looking at the mistakes I have made in the last two sections: I found only one in the December 12 section. All I have to do here is to give you the correction because then you can see the mistake for yourself: “If the triad is Semiotics (B-C-D) then thinking (B) initiates the process, communication (C) connects B to D, and physical action (D) produces the outcome.”
. I like those “mistakes” they draw our attention to passages that need more of our attention. In the December 13 section, I only found two mistakes. The first is an ordinary one: “*b +Li166)” should be: *b = Li166. The correction of the other mistake is as follows: “The difference between their triad and mine is that their triad works for them while my triad is working in the construction business but it isn’t working for me.”
. My triad is semiotics (B-C-D) and my task at that seminar was to “Identify(Mg)” the three “sources” of their triad with the three sources, or parts, of my triad. Actually I did that when “I said something like this: ‘Yes, your insight is getting your intellect [B] going and it gets the decision-making process going, the result of which is communicated verbally [C] to those who carryout the instructions on the physical level [D].’”
. Even before the participant that spoke about insights that want to be manifested “on the physical level” (D) I had already “Identified(Mg)” “BEHAVIOR” with level D. Yesterday I learned from my NSA practitioner that this participant was a practising Chiropractor and on his way to become an NSA practitioner. It was his statement that helped me to “Identify” the three monads. Having identified BEHAVIOR with level D is one down and two to go. It took a bit of force, but if I don’t give you some theories to test, what are you going to test? …
The theory (B) you can test is based on THE HOLY SCIENCE. At SUTRA 13 level A seems to be “the Door, Dasamadwara”. At SUTRA 14, HEART, the ….Anandamaya Kosha is on level A. intuitions cone to us through the “Door” (A) and are conceived by our intellect (B). Having been conceived, they become “Concepts(B1)” (B).
. Intuitions, which come to us through A are what they are, but in order to be able to think about them we must “Identify the IdentifiAble (MgptMg)”. In the process of changing an intuition into an insight something happens to the original intuition. …
Lao Tzu says: “Learn to UnLearn (ÜdPUÜd)” the wrong things you have learned. Why did he say that? …
The mind (C) uses representations (C) to identify anything unknown so fast that our intellect (B) hasn’t got a chance, it is too slow. Only if the mind doesn’t have the representations to automatically identify things by computation (C) does our intellect have a chance to “Identify the IdentifiAble” intentionally. There is still more to say about this, but I better quit here. This gives you a chance to digest this and to predict what I will say next. Good exercise. …
=========================================================
December 13, 2010
. Actually I finished up the December 12 section today. I wanted to make a clean break between the work I have done on Ching 14 in the past and what happened the day before I had that “Insight(72)”. The last thing I said in the December 12 section was: “…. So why did the ‘Insight’ not come years, month, weeks or even just a few days before it finally did come?” I didn’t put the three dots behind that question. Why? …
Because “That question can only be answered after I told you what happened on the day before the insight came to me.” On that day I went to a seminar, which was given by he therapist who picked up on the tetrad so fast. She is a practitioner of: Network Spinal Analysis (NSA), which could be the world’s most advanced therapy.
. “Knowledge of Constants Opens-you-up-to-related Insights (knCn7372).” Let me start this section with the translation of Ching 14.1, which is due to the “Insight(72)”:
Look at the Triad (#M_Z) and you Can’t See (PUoo) it. but you can
. . Call The-first-part-of-it Invisible (Mg73#N),
Listen to It (@H_Z) and you Can’t Hear (PU^d) it, but you can
. . Call The-second-part-of-it Inaudible (Mg73^e),
Grasp It (@I_Z) and you still Don’t Get (PUgt) it, but you can
. . Call The-third-part-of-it Intangible (Mg73$h). the parts of
This TriAd (Tz_3ad) are ImPossible(PUpt) to Directly Examine ($0*a)
. . Because(KU) they are Undifferentiated And Act as One (#Obtdo_1).
At the beginning of the December 8 section I did a translation of the same paragraph. As an exercise, get as many translations of this paragraph as you can and compare them with each other. If you want to take it a step further, get Star’s scholarly work on the Ching and look at the equivalents of the 24 words, which are in the first paragraph, in Star’s dictionary. These are the equivalents other translators have come up with. Get the phonetics and radical numbers from Star and look up the characters in Chinese English dictionaries. Get the concordances from Star, for “Insight(72)” or “Enlightenment(72)”, for instance, to see the different contexts in which Lao Tzu has used the same character. Most of all, take the time it takes to do a job properly. Don’t be impatient. Don’t bite off more than you can chew. Take it one step at a time. “A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step (*a*b_ZprB1toZu_1).” *a = Ch’ien24. *b +Li166.
. If you do the things Lao Tzu tells us to do then you are transforming yourself from a reader of the Tao Te Ching to a student of Lao Tzu.
. There is an error in the last line of my December 8 translation. Can you see it? …
Compare it with my December 13 translation. …
“….it Acts as One.” Is a mistake. Why
Because when read as a simple indicative sentence we get …
Its “parts …. Act as One.” This is a syntactic (C) error because …
When talking about the “parts” of the “TriAd(_3ad)” we have to use the plural and say, they, not “it”. In what sense is it also a semantic (B) error? …
The triad is a holon. Why? …
Because the “Triad(_3ad)” is the whole in which the “Monad($1)” and the “DyAd(dyad)” are the parts and when it is in the tetrad it is a part. In the A-B-C-D tetrad, the B-C-D triad is as much a “Monad”, or part, as A is a “Monad”. All N-Term systems are monads, having N parts. The “DyAd(dyad)” is a “Monad($1)” having “Two(_2)” parts. I have learned these lessons from Lao Tzu but J.G. Bennett also teaches them.
. In the November 19 and 27 sections I talk about the “cognitive dissonance” James Lovelock is talking about on page 25. And then the same idea comes up again in the December 10 section. What is that trying to tell me? You can’t answer that question until you hear what happened next.
. The next day, December 11, I went to a seminar which was given by my former therapist, the one who picked up so fast on the tetrad.
. The seminar was about the EPSTEIN TRIAD OF CHANGE. The “impulses”, or parts of this triad are PERCEPTION, STRUCTURE and BEHAVIOR. Of the dozen participants more than half were much more familiar with this triad than the minority of novices, which included me. We were not so much participants as we were observers.
. It was a valuable experience for me to listen to the exchange of ideas between the experts. They were much more familiar with that triad to the extent that in them the “Concept(B1)” (B) of this particular triad hd become a representation (C). That is why they could make it work in practice (D) the way I could make the tetrad work in practice. At least some of the experts could. Among the active participants was at least one professional practitioner, my new therapist. To become a practitioner of Network Spinal Analysis (NSA) you had to become a doctor of Chiropractice first. So $40 for a therapy session with them is not too much. It is some kind of acupuncture without needles. There is more to it, I just don’t know enough about it to say more about it. But I know that they are on to something. If they were not, I wouldn’t continue to go there for a treatment once a week. However at the seminar I run into a problem: I can’t make sense of their triad without forcing it a bit and from their exchange of ideas about it, I could see that there also was some confusion among the experts as well. How come? …
The “impulses” of “The TriAd (Tz_3ad) are ImPossible(PUpt) to Directly Examine $0*a) Because they Act as One (KUdo_1).” So it was no wonder why they couldn’t clearly “Identify(Mg)” which one of the three was “leading” as they put it. In systematics the “leading” impulse would be the initiating impulse. And if you can’t “Idenentify the monad” then you don’t know which one is the initiating impulse, which one the connective and which one is the outcome of the process. In systematics, the “Monad” (=) in the “TriAd” can usually be identified easier than the poles of the “DyAd”.Here are the six possible triads: =+-, =-+, +=-, -=+, +-= and -+=.
. The participants got around this problem in a unique way: ...
By asking each other: Which impulse is the “leading” one in you? Is it …
“PERCEPTION”? is it “STRUCTURE” or “BEHAVIOR”? …
Because we have here a specific question, the experts, who had stepped down the idea (B) of these impulses to representations (C) of these impulse actually came up with concrete answers to this question. And not only to avoid the “discomfort” of “cognitive dissonance”, as I assumed at first, they could actually make their triad work for them. What better learning experience could I have come into than this?
. As I was trying to “Identify the monads” in terms of the B-C-D triad, it became clear that “BEHAVIOR” is what we do (D) it is visible, audible, and tangible. For instance the verbal exchange of the participants is observable “BEHAVIOR”. And we observe it by “PERCEPTION”. I am not making this up here, this information came to me from the verbal (C) exchange of the participants.
. As I have to skip a lot in Lovelock’s book and in my past study of Ching 14 so I have to skip much of what I have learned in this seminar. Let me just describe one lesson that stood out for me: One participant said that he had developed a structure by means of which he could get more “insights” and, listen to this, the insights “want” to be manifested. I can’t put things in quotes because I only recall these words from memory. So even the word “want” may not be the one he used, but what I distinctly remember is that I could clearly associate his words with the customer’s (A) “job-description”. The insight, or some insights, come with the demand to be manifested. In other words demand necessitates supply, you can’t have the one without the other. This caused me to break my silence and make an interjection. Of course in such a group setting you only have a few seconds to get your point across. Again, I don’t remember exactly HOW I said it, but I do remember that, after I had said it, I was satisfied with it. I said something like this:’Yes, your insight is getting your intellect [B] going and it gets the decision-making process going, the result of which is communicated verbally [C] to those who carryout the instructions on the physical level [D].’
. This statement didn’t go anywhere because it is a tetrad and not a triad and the B-C-D triad doesn’t correspond close enough to their triad. To accept this statement as true would cause a “cognitive dissonance”. The difference between their triad and mine is that their triad is working for them while my triad is working in the construction but not for me.
. I hope that you can see that after such an interesting day I woke up with the new “Insight(72)” and I still remember that the first thought that went through my mind, after the flash, was: Oh no, HOW am I going to explain this? …
How did I do? …
========================================================
December 12, 2010
. This morning around 4 AM I had an “Insight(72)”. Insights come to us in a fraction of a second. But please bear with me as I try to describe it. My best isn’t the best a writer (C) can do. But, as long as no communicator (C) finds these ideas (B) worth communicating, what you see is the best I can do. So what is an insight? …
It is an intuition that comes to us through A and is conceived by B. And, having been conceived, it …
becomes a concept (B).
. “Words(C2)” and “Names(Mg)” are attached to ideas or things in order to think (B) and talk (C) about them.
Intuitions come to us, through A, in their pure form but we can’t think (B) about them before we have “Identified(Mg)”; and we can't talk (C) about them before we have “Named(Mg)” them”. Lao Tzu says at Ching 1.1,2:
“Identify the IdentifyAble (MgptMg)”! And, having done that, he says:
“Name the NamAble (MgptMg) in order to produce its Opposite(Fy)”!
And now he says at Ching 1.2,1:
“Without Name (WUMg) is Heaven and Earth'S (TnTI_Z) Conception(B1)”
. So we cannot think about an intuition (A) before we have identified (B) it, and we can’t talk about an “Insight(72)” (B) before we have “Named(Mg)” (C) it.
. This stuff could be either too boring or too demanding for you. In spite of being aware (A) of how you might feel about this, this is the best I can do. “KnowErs are Not good with Words (knerPUC2), and WordErs Don’t Understand (C2erPUkn)” what the thinkers (B) are talking about. Lao Tzu seems to love paradoxes but I have a hard time dealing with them. His advise, from Chapters 63 and 64, comes to mind: …
‘Don’t bite off more than you can chew!’ Actually I was trying to do that above: I was trying to tell you HOW the “Insight” came about. It all started about forty years ago when I got interested in the Tao Te Ching. So …
HOW do you put 40 years of work on a few pages? …
You can’t. So all I can say: Please hang in there. What I can tell you with confidence is that it will not take you another 40 years to get it. I have reasons to believe that I can save you time. My NSA Therapist got a big chunk of it in a few hours of discussions with her. That gives me the confidence that others can get it as fast as she did.
. This will take more than one section, but let me start at the beginning but focusing primarily on chapter 14 because that’s what the insight was about.
. I have studied Ching 14, on and off, for quite a few years now, and what I had trouble with for all of those years was HOW to translate Yüeh(73). It is “used as an expletive (2712)”. It is in the first three sentences of Ching 14, and if all it means is, what other translators and I have translated it as, then Lao Tzu wouldn’t have used an expletive to say that. So why did he use that character in that context? …
Unless you look at a few translations of it, you can’t answer that question. That question has been with me for years and now, this morning, an answer came. You can hopefully understand why everything else has to go on the back-burner until I have described this “Insight” to you as best as I can and that will take time and space: …
. Ching 14 consists of three paragraphs for the same reason that Ching 25 consists of four paragraphs. Of the ten translations I have left Ellen M. Chen and James Legge also have divided the chapter into three paragraphs. It is good to have company. Their first paragraph is the same one I have. Because the chapter is divided into three paragraphs and the reconciling impulse seems to be in the middle, the chapter is analogous to a standard indicative sentence. The first paragraph is like the subject, it is what the chapter is about, the second paragraph relates the subject to the predicate, and the last sentence is the conclusion, or the outcome of the “TriAd(_3ad)”. If the triad as Semiotics (B-C-D) then thinking (B) initiates the process, communication (C) connects B to D and physical action (D) produces the outcome.
. In the two translations, in which the chapter is divided into three paragraphs, I think the first sentence of the last paragraph should be the last sentence of the second paragraph. The second paragraph is a holon, it is a whole part. It is a bit of the subject and a bit of the predicate. For instance, a sentence is the whole of the words in it and a part of the paragraph it is in. For this reason I say that the first sentence of their last paragraph should be part of the holon. To see what I mean you need more than one translation to get some idea of what is in the original text.
. Legge’s commentary on 14 is excellent, it is over half a page long. I will not quote it all but I couldn’t resist quoting the following: “ …. The subject of par. 1 is the Tao, but the Tao in its operation, and not the primal conception of it [as in Ching 25], as entirely distinct from things, which rises before the mind in the second paragraph. …. Lao tze has not in this chapter a personal Being before his mind, but the procedure [The “TriAd(_3ad)” is an activity, or “procedure” that has a beginning, a middle and an end] of his mysterious Tao, the course according to which the visible phenomena take place, incognisable by human sense and capable of only approximate description by terms appropriate to what is within the domain of sense.”
. The “Monad($1), the “DyAd(dyad”, the “TriAd(_3ad)” and the rest of the N-Term systems are something definite that can be understood o matter HOW they are described. Our own thinking (B) and experience (D) of the first four N-Term system can give us the understanding (B) of then. Thinking depends on “IdentifyAble(ptMg)” objects but not necessarily on “Words(C2)” describing them. The “Tao is Always Without Name (A1CnWUMg)”. “Without Name is Heaven and Earth'S Conception (WUMgTnTI_ZB1)”.
. In the Ching the first four N-Term systems are described. Lao Tzu’s and J.G. Bennett’s intention is to make number systems comprehensible or “cognisable” to us. The “DyAd(dyad)” is first mentioned at Ching 1.4, the “TriAd(_3ad)” is taught at Ching 14 and the “Four(_4)” term system is taught at Ching 25.
. Let me continue to fill you in with at least some of the parts which I have studied over the years:
. Richard Wilhelm has “Keim (Seedling)”, “Fein (Fine)” and “Klein (Small)” for the three “Names(Mg)” we get in the first three sentences of Ching 14. These are not accurate translations of Yi(#N), Hsi(^e) and Wei($h, but they rhyme. So we must allow for some poetic licence. His translation of the last paragraph may not be the most accurate one, but it is so nice that I just have to translate it as best as I can:
. “When one holds on to the Sense (“den SINN”) of the ancients,
in order to master the Being of the present (das Sein von heute),
then one can know the original beginning.
Which is the connecting threat of the SENSE.”
. Something is lost in translation from the Chinese to the German and from the German to the English, but accuracy is not all that matters. By comparing different translations of the same Chinese characters and using the dictionaries as well, you can get a feeling of what Lao Tzu must have meant It also helps to know that here Lao Tzu is using the “TriAd(_3ad)”. And, as I just said, Language (C) is not all that is needed to gain understanding.
. Aleister Crowly tells us that the “impulses”, or parts of the triad, “Named(Mg)” in the first three sentences are the Yod-He-Vau of the Cabala.
. The Carus/Suzuki team have a four-page commentary on this chapter:
. “It is strange that Lao-tze’s description of the Tao [of the “TriAd(_3ad)”] finds an almost literal parallel in the Phaedrus were Plato speaks of the presence of ….This presence is described as an essence, truly existent, without color, without shape and impalpable. ….” Why is this “strange? …
If Plato knows the triad and he describes it as best as he can in Greek, and if …
Lao Tzu knows the “TriAd(_3ad)” and he describes it as best as he can in Chinese, and if the Greek and the Chinese is translated into English why, then, is it “strange that Lao Tzu’s description of the [“TriAd”] …. Finds an almost literal parallel in” Plato’s description of the triad.
. This will have to do for a summary of my past study of Ching 14. It definitely had something to do wit the “Insight(72)” I had on Sunday morning but, as I already said, I have studied the Ching for forty years and during these years, after I had done “Enough(Zu)” work on Ching 25, I paid more and more attention to Ching 14. So why did the “Insight” not come years, months weeks or even just a few days before it finally did come? That question can only be answered after I told you what happened on the day before the insight came to me.
====================================================
December 10, 2010
Akashic Field, Akashic Record, Collective Unconscious and Morphogenetic Field are different “Names(Mg)” for the same Field. And the content in that Field is what it is. So why are the descriptions, of that Field and its content by different writers, different? …
The three dots at the end of a line mean: Please stop reading and do some thinking. …
One way to do it is to space down with the (down arrow) key until the three dots at the end of a line show up at the bottom of the screen. Then stop and think. Space down further and compare your answer with mine. So why are there different names for the same Field and why is it and its content described differently by different authors? …
If your answer is different from mine it doesn’t necessarily mean that you are wrong. I can be wrong as well. Either way, it is better to think than not to think. So how do you explain these differences in different descriptions of the same thing? …
Let us go back to my commentary on the quote from Pg. 125. It is in the December 8 section below this one: “Whatever we ‘instantly recognize’ our mind (C) does for us” automatically. …
. Our mind (C) also does other things automatically, fast, efficiently, accurately as instructed and without our conscious (A) participation. What is it? …
Let us go back to the quotes from Pg. 25. What do they tell us? …
In the November 27 section I have quoted what is relevant here.
. Pg. 25:
“’cognitive dissonance’ …. It operates when we chose between two almost equal objects and, having chosen, invest our choice with superlative advantage”. …
What relates this quote to the line of thought we are following here? …
That our mind does the choosing for us. And it “operates” with Automatic Energy (E6), automatically, fast, efficiently and without our conscious participation. Our mind saves us the trouble to think (B) about paradoxes by solving the problem for us by computation (C). Our mind automatically solves the problem “by modifying or rejecting one of the ideas.” There is a lot more about this in the November 19 section but there is no point in repeating all of that here. What is the point here? …
The authors who got A’s vision of the Field and its content necessarily had preconceived ideas or representations (C), about it, before they received them as intuitions. Representations (C) are more concrete than ideas (B). Representations are established so solidly in the mind that even the evidence of the senses (D) is altered “by modifying or rejecting” the ones that don’t agree with the established representations. One message of Ching 1.3 is that we “See(Kn)” what we “Want((YÜ)” to see.
. On page124 James says: “I suspect that one huge advantage of human brains is their plasticity”. Brain (D) is the wrong word here. It should be intellect (B). The mind (C) is anything but “plastic”.
. Pg. 130:
“Holistic systems science is concerned with intact systems such as the Earth, living organisms and self-regulating artifacts made by engineers.”
. The IBM computer programming system is an excellent example of this. It is the terad used intentionally (A), intelligently (B) and efficiently (C) to produce practical (D) results. It is the customer (A) complemented by the supplier (B-C-D). This triad is semiotics. What has been substituted for semiotics (B-C-D) is syntactics (C). The social engineers are making students believe that the part is the whole. They can only get away with such a blatant distortion of the truth as long as they can keep students dumbed down enough.
. Pg. 131:
“In certain ways modelling by scientists has become a threat to the foundations on which science has stood: the acceptance that nature is always the final arbiter and that a hypothesis must always be tested by experience and observation in the real world.” By trying to make us believe that this is not so, the social engineers might have bitten of more than they can chew. How many more observations of the real will be needed to expose the social engineers for what they are.
. Same page:
“’The eminence of a scientist is measured by the length of time he holds up progress.’”
. Jacques Derrida was such an “eminent” authority on semiotics.
. Same page:
“Descartes …. His insistence on the separation of mind and body persisted as an influence so strongly that only in the last few years has the notion of ‘plasticity’ become respectable: the concept that thought can change the physical structure of the brain and vice versa.”
. I came across this idea of thought (B) changing “the physical structure of the brain” in the book: Change Your BRAIN Change Your LIFE by Daniel G. Amen, M.D. We can also see how the “formal cause” (B) becomes the “efficient cause” (C) and C becomes the “material cause” (D). When you understand the IBM programming system, you know that its designers had to know the Aristotelian tetrad. To supply the customer’s (A) demand you need thought (B), word (C) and deed (D). The algorithm, the theoretical solution of a problem, is produced by thought (B). The algorithm is translated into a computer program. A computer program is a series of instructions given in computer language (C) and the instructions are executed by the computer (D), in the sequence they are given.
. . .A . . . . . The Cartesian plane, see diagram to the left, helps us to
D . + . B . . understand the tetrad. The question: Why are there only
. . .C . . . . . four “sources”, or parts of the tetrad? Why no more no less
. . . . . . . . . . is answered by Descartes. The Cartesian plane is Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)” wrapped around the cross. I don’t think that Aristotle gave credit to his teacher. As you can see, “mind” (C) and “body” (D) are separate “Monads($1)” within the system but we also know from experience that all four “sources” are interdependent. Weaken, or break, any one of the four and you weaken, or break, the system as a whole. Here I am not giving you another abstract theory (B), here I am speaking from experience (D) for a change.
. Same page:
. “Trust in the validity of models made in isolation by Earth and life scientists had a malign effect on their understanding of the Earth. This was because life scientists failed to include a dynamically responsive environment and Earth scientists failed to include organisms that evolved and responded dynamically to environmental change.” In other words the Earth put constrains in the way of organisms, which in turn change the environment.
. James is speaking in terms of systematics. We are coming back to what I just said above: Break or exclude a part and you break the system as a whole. Without the details James is getting into, we can shoot down “scientists” don't know systematics with systematics 101.
======================================================
December 8, 2010
. The work I did on Neiye 4 in the last section brought Ching 14 to mind. Why? …
Because Wên(^d) and Chien(oo), which are in the lines I have quoted, are also in Ching 14. Here it is: “
Look at It (#M_Z) and you Can’t See (PUoo) it. Identify(Mg) It-as(73) Formless(#N).
Listen to It (@H_Z) and you Can’t Hear (PU^d) it. Name It (Mg73) Soundless(^e).
Grasp It (@I_Z) and you Don’t Get (PUgt) it. Identify It (Mg73) as Intangible($h).
This TriAd (Tz_3ad) is ImPossible(PUpt) to Directly Examine $0*a)
Because(KU) its parts are Undifferentiated And it Acts as One (#Obtdo_1).”
. *a = Chieh149. There you have systematics at its best. You can’t describe the “TriAd” any better. Lao Tzu is telling us that the existence of the triad must be confirmed indirectly. We can’t see hear or touch it but we can “Make Use(dous)” of it as we could make use of the tetrad before the social engineers made it “disappear”.
. When we “Get(gt)” it, we often say “I see” So the “Seeing(oo)” can be associated with thinking (B). “Listening(^e)” is as important a part of communication (C) as talking is, and by “Grasping It (@I_Z)” we may get a hold of its physical (D) form but we don’t “Get(gt)” it. Because of these associations, I believe that Lao Tzu is hinting here at the B-C-D “TriAd”.
Let us continue with THE VANISHING FACE OF GAIA
. Pg. 124:
“I suspect that one huge advantage of human brains is their plasticity,”.
. A characteristic of the human brain (D) is its programmability. The brain is analogous to the computer (D), the mind (C) is analogous to the coder (C) and the intellect (B) is analogous to the programmer. Because of the Law of correspondence, analogy is not only a powerful thinking tool but also an excellent communication and teaching tool. The social engineers, who are in control of our educational system, must know this but, if they do, they are not teaching it, nor are they using it to teach. How come? …
. The text continues “…plasticity, the ability to draw in new information and from it form intuition,”. Our intellect (B) has “the ability to draw in new information” through what the Hindus call the “Door, Dasamadwara”. New information is received by B from A in the form of intuition. The text continues: “…. Intuition, a mind-made software”. Computer software is the program. It is produced by the programmer (B), who is developing the algorithm for it, and by the coder (C) who is coding it.
. I have an algorithm for an emulator of the perfect IBM 1401 machine language. I have coded it in Turbo Basic but I can’t code it in the new computer chip machine languages in which it should be coded..
. The text continues: Computer “software …. acts as a surrogate for instinct”. “surrogate” is a good word, “instinct” is not. A well programmed mind (C) acts indeed as a surrogate, or deputy, for the intellect (B) but a mind programmed by the social engineers “acts as a surrogate for” them from within us. The text continues but I have already dealt with that in yesterdays section, which is below this one.
. Pg. 125:
. “So how do we know, how do we instantly recognize life?” Whatever we “instantly recognize” our mind (C) does for us with Automatic Energy (E6), fast and efficiently. The text continues “…. life? Mainly by seeking differences and similarities between what our model predicts and what our eyes see.”
. This calls to mind Plato’s Republic. He has Socrates say the following bright things:
. “I’ll try to explain what I have in mind …. and show you [Glaucon] how I distinguish in my own mind between things that have the drawing power I mean [the power “that will provoke the mind to thought” as Desmond Lee puts it] and things that have not (523a)” this drawing power.
. “By perceptions that don’t call for thought I mean those that don’t simultaneously issue in a contrary perception [In this case “what our model predicts and what our eyes see” is the same.]; those that do call for thought are those that do so issue in the sense that in them sensation is ambiguous between two contraries (523c)”. In other words: “what our model predicts and what our eyes see” is different.
. Isn’t that concept important enough that students of philosophy should know it? James doesn’t claim to be a philosopher, yet he knew it. I had friends at the University of Toronto. They knew that I had studied the Republic for a long time. At one point the Republic was to be discussed by the Philosophy Club at Heart House and I got invited. The meeting was a great disappointment to me. At one point I asked: “Did anyone here actually read the Republic?” No hands were showing. How is it possible to get a degree in philosophy, without even having read the Republic? …
Because if you read and understand the Republic then the answers you can give are not what the examiners want you to give. In other words you will fail the test. Why? …
Because the people who determine the curriculum are not interested in the truth, they are only interested in the “official version” of the truth, and you don’t find those in the Republic. Eric Berne, the founder of Transactional Analysis, is an example of good people failing bad tests.
. Pg. 126:
. “Wondrously as they [our senses] are, our bodies did not evolve by natural selection to see and recognize atoms or distant galaxies. No wonder we scientists try so feverishly to build models and instruments potent enough to make the perception of these imperceptibles seem real. Why then do all of us not see by instinct [C] or intuition [A] something as important as Gaia?” …
. And then James continues to tell us why. But why do I have to type all of that when you can read it yourself? Same page: Scientists
“know by instinct or intuition what is alive, and in no way does the Earth meet their criteria for life. Instinct and intuition are powerful and cannot be denied, and so my assertion of planet sized life is discounted as an eccentricity.”
. Pg. 127:
“Perception [D] and insight [B] still set the limit to our wisdom.” But only if we “Know that we Don’t Know (knPUkn)” it all. “He who (heho) sick sick (@p@p), who knows not that he knows not, ThereFore does Not feel Sick (SiYIPU@p).” I have been working on Ching 71 on and off for over 40 years. Now the quotes came to mind automatically. I can’t take credit for that. It just happened to me, but I can take credit for the work I have done on this chapter.
. Same page:
“Insight they [the “scientists” who have been programmed to compute (C) but not trained to think (B)] see it as a child of intuition, [as] something irrational …. Dislike it they may, but the large steps in science come as often from insights as from rational analysis and synthesis.”
. Pg. 128:
“We now have the insight of Gaia that Darwinian evolution is constrained by feedback from the material environment.”
. The word “constrained” brings to mind other passages in which “constrain” appears. You can use blogspot’s Find function (Press (CTRL) and F together) to find the passages in which that word appears. See what you can learn from that. ...
. Same paragraph:
“Gaia is a holistic concept and therefore unpalatable to rational Earth and life scientists,” “rational” is a kind word for brainwashed students.
. Same page:
. “My reason for persisting in calling the Earth Gaia and saying it is alive is …. because I see this as an essential step in the process of public, as well as scientific, understanding.” I think that “public” comes before “scientific” in this passage because the uneducated public has a better chance to understand this book than “educated” scientists.
===================================================
December 7, 2010
. A highlight in the Documentary: WAITING FOR SUPERMAN was the scene in which the membership was not allowed to vote. This, now, automatically brings to mind what happened to the Green Party of Ontario: The membership is no longer allowed to vote.
. The two situations are not identical to each other but they are analogous: …
The membership, which includes the founding members, is deprived of the democratic right to participate in the decision-making process.
. And, what I just said, automatically calls “the tricks and stratagems” to mind Plato is talking about at 548a of his Republic. How come? …
By thinking, reading, talking or writing about the truth we are “Fixing(8b)” it in the mind. We step down an abstract idea (B) to a more concrete representation (C), which then comes to mind automatically. The social engineers know this. If you “Repeat(@1)” a lie often “Enough(Zu)” the people will eventually believe (C (pistis in Greek)) it.
. Pg. 124 of Lovelock’s book:
“…. A mind-made software that …. allows rapid and unconscious action.”
. Even though James is not spelling it out, he is talking about the syntactic dimension of semiotics (C) in which work is done with Automatic Energy (E6) unconsciously, automatically, fast, accurately and efficiently. This is why Aristotle has called level C of Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)” the “efficient cause”. The Aristotelian tetrad was taught in school before the social engineers changed all of that. Why do they have to make the truth “disappear”? …
Why do they “Always(Cn) Cause(%e) the People(Mn) to be Without that Knowledge (WUkn)”. And HOW are they doing that? …
They are repeating their “official version” of the truth often “Enough(Zu)”, so that abstract ideas (B) become more concrete representations (C), which, by association, automatically come to mind so fast that the mind (C) has finished its computations (C) before our intellect (B) can even start to think (B). What can we do about that? ….
We can repeat “the truth often ‘Enough(Zu)’, so that abstract ideas (B) become more concrete representations (C), which, by association, automatically come to mind so fast that” when an “official version” of the truth kicks in they automatically trigger the truth which falsifies them. When this happens, a lie, which has taken the social engineers years to “Fix(8d)” in your mind (C) is defused, by your intellect (B), in a matter of seconds. But ...
this will only happen if we have programmed our mind (C) to call on the intellect (B) when it catches one of those “tricks”. When this happens we can experience how fast it all happens.
. I was watching the news on TV with a bunch of other people around and the announcer slipped in “9/11” as if everybody knows that the bad Arabs did it. And automatically the word “WOW” slipped out of my mouth and so loud that I was surprised at my boldness myself. And somebody else spoke up and said that he doesn’t believe either that the bad Arabs did it. I can’t even take credit for serving the truth on that occasion because I “Did it Without Doing (doWUdo)“ it intentionally. It just happened. But I can take credit for the programming I did on myself. And HOW do we program ourselves? …
By thinking, reading, talking and writing about the truth. As long as the truth is merely a theory it cannot set us free. Our knowledge (B) of a truth must become automatic. It must become a representation (C). In order to be able to compete with the social engineers, our thoughts (B) must become computations (C). Perhaps that is what the phrase “thinking in the heart” means. Gita 17.3 comes to mind. Juan Mascaró’s translation of it is:
“The faith of a man follows his nature, Arjuna, Man is made of faith: as his faith is so he is.”
. Winthrop Sargeant informs us that “faith”, here, is Sraddha. Winthrop’s work on the Gita is like Star’s work on the Ching. So I use it to check up on other translations. This verse is relevant to what we are doing here, so it might shed light on it. Here is Winthrop’s translation:
“Faith is in accordance
With the truth (nature [sattva (n.), truth, essential nature]) of each,
Decendant of Bharate [Arjuna].
Man is made of faith. Whatever faith he has, thus is he.”
. The following questions will take us a bit further. Try to come up with one. …
What is this truth (Sattwa) “The faith of a man follows”? …
What knowledge do we have faith (A) in? …
What knowledge do we believe (C) in? …
HOW do we gain the knowledge we have faith, or believe, in”? …
By not telling you what I think, you might do some thinking yourself. …
In the December 5 section I said:
“What is processed with Automatic Energy, by thinking, are representations.”
. Syntactically this sentence is correct but there is a semantic error in it. If there were no error in it then …
we wouldn’t pay “Enoug(Zu)” attention (A) to it.
. Near the end of the same section I wrote about the customer’s (A) demand.
“It is to be supplied material form (B).”
. There are two errors in here. Can you see them? …
One is a syntactic (C) error, a word missing; the other is a …
semantic (B) error. …
Identifying the monad is a basic operation in systematics. The question, as here, is often: On which level of Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)” is the monad on? …
Is it an level A, B, C or D? …
Pg. 123. The first paragraph of chapter 7 of Lovelock’s book:
. “A rarely mentioned drawback to science is how frequently we have to take for true things that cannot directly be confirmed by our senses. We are told that everything is made of atoms, but we can never see them with our naked eyes; …. When I look down from space I will be able to see our planet as it is, something real and solid; but as with atoms I can only infer Gaia’s existence from indirect evidence.”
. Neiye 4 comes to mind:
4j: “Silent(*?) It-is((HU), so Nobody can Hear Its Sound (MO^d_H#a.”
4l: “Obscure(*?*?) It-is(HU) so we Can’t See Its Form (PUoo_H@k).”
4o: We “Can’t See Its Form (PUoo_H@k),
4p: we Can’t Hear Its Sound (PU^d_H4o),.
4q: Yet we can perceive an order to (bt4p Roth) Its Accomplishments (_Hcm).
4r: we can Call It Tao (is_ZA1).” 4o = Sheng128. 4p = Hsü53.
As we have to “infer Gaia’s existence from indirect evidence” so …
We have to infer the Tao's existence from indirect evidence.
I didn't get very far with chapter 7 but I hope that I have given you enough to think about.
=========================================================
December 6, 2010
. The December 5 section was almost ready to go but I didn’t post it because at 4 PM I went out to see a movie. The Review, which caused me to see it was:
“WAITING FOR SUPERMAN
2010 (Davis Guggenheim) G, 128 min Documentary
Oscar winning filmmaker Guggenheim follows a handful of promising
kids through a system that inhibits, rather than encourages, academic
growth, undertaking an exhaustive review of public education and dis-
secting the system and its intractable problems.”
. And the problems will remain “intractable” as long as we don’t look for their causes. What are the causes? …
If you have read a bit more of my blog then you can predict what I will say. …
As the social engineers have infiltrated and taken over the Green Party of Ontario, so they have infiltrated and taken over the “Teachers Union”. As unbelievable the mess they have caused may be, it becomes believable (C) if we understand (B) the logic behind their “tricks and strategies”.
. Guggenheim deserves full credit for showing us WHAT has been done. What we still have to know is WHY and HOW it is done? …
Here are the questions which must arise: …
Try to come up with one before reading on. …
Who is running the “Teachers Union”? …
Who is determining the curriculum? …
Here comes a leading question: Who has made semiotics “disappear”? …
And who is putting the teachers under political (C) and economic (D) constrains? …
. If you have answered the last question then you can see that the “Teachers Union” is indirectly fighting the social engineers, who are behind the whole mess and they just love it. The president of the “Teachers Union” is getting a lot of footage. She is so good, there is no doubt in my mind that she is an “agent”. For agent, please Google:
Protocols of Zion agent (ENTER).
. Our political masters must “Always Cause the People (Cn%eMn) to be ….
Without the Desire (WUYÜ)” to know or to study. Lao Tzu said that over 2300 years ago and we still don’t see HOW they are doing it. Some of the blame must go to the social engineers, but not all of it. The choice to think or not to think is ours and we are responsible for our choices.
. The film is showing again December 8 at 7:00 PM and Dec. 9 at 9:15 at the REVUE cinema at 400 Roncesvalles Avenue, here in Toronto.
December 5, 2010
. The third paragraph of the last section, below this one, begins with the following sentence:
“What is processed by thinking, with Sensitive Energy, are ideas;
what is processed by computation, with Automatic Energy, are representations.”
. If there were a period behind the words in the first line, instead of the semicolon, then we would have two complete Subject-connective-predicate sentences with a subordinate phrase between the subject and the connective. The connective in both sentences is “are”. Without the subordinate phrases, the sentences would be: …
‘What is processed by thinking are ideas’ and the other one would be: …
‘What is processed by computation are representations. You can also exchange the subordinate phrase with part of the subject: …
‘What is processed with Sensitive Energy are thoughts.’ And the other one would be: …
‘What is processed with Automatic Energy, by thinking, are representations.’
. Notice that I have thrown in a subordinate phrase here.
. Because I have described the rules of syntax (C) before in this blog, the work I have done just now practically did itself with Automatic Energy. When these thoughts have become automatic, by practice, computation (C) takes over from thinking (B) automatically. In the syntactic dimension of semiotics work is done faster, automatically, more efficiently and accurately. If the programming is done intentionally by ourselves it is a good thing; if done intentionally by the social engineers it is a bad thing. Why do you think they are in control of our educational system? …
. Let us continue with Lovelock’s book on Gaia.
. Pg. 106:
“For Gaia theory the new evidence was the detailed analysis of the composition [Pg, 107 starts here] of Mars’ and Venus’ atmospheres revealed from the infra-red spectra of the planets”. These two planets are dead and if we keep going with ‘business as usual’ we will kill this one as well.
. Same paragraph:
“The Connes released this information in September 1965 and we received it at JPL . Before this I had argued that the easiest way to see if Mars had life was simply to measure the chemical composition of the atmosphere. My argument was that if the planet had no life then the atmosphere would be close to chemical equilibrium; that is to say, no energy would come from the gases of the atmosphere reacting together. …. Such a use of the atmosphere would make it recognizably different from the equilibrium atmosphere of a dead planet.”
. Same page:
“Such constancy implies a degree of disequilibrium with an astronomical improbability.”.
. Pg. 108:
“It was known in the 1960s that the sun had warmed by at least 25 per cent since life began 3.5 billion years ago, and regulation would have been needed to retain habitability.”
. Same page:
“Lynn made a huge contribution to the concept of Gaia by stressing the importance of the micro-organisms in the evolution of our planet.”
. Pg. 110:
. “Proof that the Earth self-regulates carbon dioxide abundance and temperature had to wait until 2008”.
. On pages 116 and 117 are listed ten predictions listed, with a description of how they are tested and the result of tests. Most have been “Confirmed” and “Generally accepted” by now. The question is then why are some scientists still unwilling or able to accept the theory. Obviously James had to ask this question:
. Sill Pg. 110:
“The reason for disagreement lies in the often reductionist and disciplinary nature of the Earth and life sciences. This makes it difficult to share ideas about Gaia. As I see it, to understand Gaia requires an instinctive familiarity with the dynamics of systems in action”.
. “instinctive” is not the right word for the automatic computing (C) of representations (C) but, if you lack the knowledge of systematics, “instinctive” would be the best way to put it.
. Same page:
“Were it not for the deadly serious consequences of using the wrong theory, the disagreement would be no more than the normal slow process of scientific understanding.”
. Pg. 112:
“In 1979 it occurred to me that the biologists’ objections would collapse if the regulator could be shown to be the whole Earth system, made up from all of life, including the air, the oceans and the surface rocks, not just organisms alone.”
. Yes, the “whole” is greater than the sum of its parts. A better understanding of systematics, or the Tao Te Ching is needed here.
. Pg. 116:
. “As a scientist closer to physics than to other disciplines, I knew that the value of a theory is judged by the accuracy of its predictions and its capacity to resist falsification.” It follows the table with the ten predictions
“-------------------------------------------------------
Prediction . . . . . Test . . . . . Result
-------------------------------------------------------“
. Pg. 117:
. “The next important step in the history of Gaia was the Amsterdam Declaration …. ‘The Earth System behaves as a single, self-regulating system comprised of physical, chemical, biological and human components’ ….but I knew that it still had some way to go, …. The goal of self-regulation is the maintenance of habitability
. Pg 118: You cannot
“speak of self regulation without specifying the aim, goal or set point of the system.”
. Look how close to systematics James is getting here. You cannot expect the supply “without specifying” what the demand is. In the Aristotelian tetrad the “final cause” (A) is the “job-description” in computer programming. It is the customer's (A) demand. It is to be supplied material form (B). It is the “outcome” of the B-C-D triad. The “final” step is the “material cause” (D) and the second step is the “formal cause” (B). The gap between theory (B) and practice (D) is filled by the “efficient cause” (C).
. The people who have developed the IBM computer programming system must have known the Aristotelian tetrad. The process as a whole is a stepping down of energy, from E4 to E5, E5 to E6 and from E6 to E7
. This section is getting long. Since you can read the chapter yourself, let me just skip to the last page of this chapter:
“I am not asking my scientist colleges to …. Immediately become systems scientists.”
. There he said it: Systems science includes systems theory and systems theory is included in systematics.
=====================================================
December 4, 2010
. What our political masters are doing is unbelievable to us. If it were believable (C) then they couldn’t get away with it. But there is a logic behind of what they are doing and that can be understood (B).
, I have put this statement in front of this section because it is worth remembering and “Repeating(@1)” until that idea (B) becomes a representation (C).
The last section was about chapter 5 of Lovelock’s book on Gaia. It is 11 pages long. I have reduced it to a little over one page. And that page is summarized in one sentence: “If you don’t understand something well enough, don’t mess around with it.” And now you can go over my quotes or the 11 pages to see if Lovelock’s book to see if his words support my summary or not. Good exercise.
. At the beginning of yesterday’s section, below this one, I said: “that intuition (A) becomes thought (B), thought becomes automatic computation (C) and computation becomes physical action (D).”
What is processed by thinking, with Sensitive Energy (E5), are ideas (B);
what is processed by computation, with Automatic Energy (E6), are representations (C).
There you have another idea (B) worth thinking about until it is a representation (C).
. The twelve ENERGIES and the twelve N-Term system are really all systematics is about. The first four N-Term systems are what can be called Systematics 101. They are the introduction to systematics but if you know them then you already know a lot about all 12 systems. Why? …
Because of the Law of correspondence. As above, in “Heaven so Below (Tn_-)”, on earth. All 12 systems are analogous to each other because they all have certain principles in common: For instance, in all of the systems the whole is greater than the sum of its parts but each part is like a link in a chain. Break one and you break the chain. In systems theory we are talking about a “critical path”.
. If you know one of the twelve systems well, then you know these two principles well, and then you know that much of all systems. In my case it is the tetrad, I have seen it working for nine years until the social engineers have made the IBM computer programming system “disappear”. Do I have to tell you why? …
. I have studied the Tao Te Ching since early 1970. My knowledge of the tetrad has enabled me to understand Ching 71 and that’s what got me going on Lao Tzu’s book. He is primarily focussing on the first four N-Term systems, the “Monad($1)”, the “DyAd(dyad)”, the “TriAd(_3ad)” and the “Four(_4)” term system. Over the years I have learned more about systematics from Lao Tzu than from J.G. Bennett’s DRAMATIC UNIVERSE but without it, I wouldn’t have got going on the Ching. I wouldn’t have been “Able(ab)” to believe that Lao Tzu is that smart. And the work I have done on the Ching enables me now to translate (and interpret in lower case) Neiye ten (0) lines a to d:
0a: With an “Orderly Intellect In your Center (85HsÜp_=)” Hsing(Hs) is the
. . A-B-C “TriAd” and the intellect (B) is in the “Center(_=) between A and C.
0b: “Orderly Words Come-out From your Mouth (85C2Cuto@l) and
0c: Orderly Tasks are Given To Other (85D2*atomn)” people to be carried
. . out. *a = Chia19. And
0d: “Only Then, if they are carried out, can those in Heaven [on level B] and
. . Below it [on levels C and D] be in Order Yi (Ja18Tn_-85Yi).” Yi(Yi) is “A final particle denoting that the sense has been fully expressed (4312)”.
. The A-B-C-D tetrad is the human sphere of influence for which we are responsible. Hsin(Hs) represents the A-B-C “TriAd(_3ad)” and “Heaven Below (Tn_-)” represents the thought, word and deed (B-C-D) “TriAd”. These two overlapping triads are within our human sphere of influence, so it can be said that the four types of activity we are capable of have “been fully expressed”. These words were written down at least 2300 years ago and the content of these words couldn’t be expressed any better today.
Pg. 105 of Lovelock’s book. Chapter “6
. . . . . . . . . . THE HISTORY OF GAIA THEORY
The idea of an Earth system science, a self-regulating Earth with the community of living organisms in control, came into my mind at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California in September 1965.”
. Notice the phrase “came into my mind”. The chapter is 17 pages long. Ideally you will read it yourself, As it is, I will do the same with it which I have done with the last chapter, for the same reason.
=========================================================
December 3, 2010
. There is enough food for thought in the November 26 section to fill another one. But we don’t get through Lovelock’s book that way. Let me instead put the whole thing in a sentence:
. If the lower “Aligns(%8)” itself with the higher, the higher can be established on the lower level, which means that intuition (A) becomes…
thought (B), thought becomes automatic computation (C) and computation becomes …
physical action (D).
. Pg. 92 of the book:
“If geoengineering is defined as purposeful human activity …. We became geoengineers soon after our species started using fire ….Our use of fires as a biocide ….was our second act of geoengineering. Third was industry …. But until quite recently …. We were unaware …. Of the adverse consequences.”
. Since I am not a scientist there is little or nothing I can add to this and since typing is not my “dharma” or “business” as Plato put it, I don’t have to type more than is necessary to follow the train of thought that runs through the whole book, but especially through this chapter. Try to identify the general idea (B) behind these words before we reach the end of this chapter. Good exercise.
. Pg. 92:
The gaps that exist in knowledge about …. About ….and even the clouds …. Make predictions unreal.”
. Since you can get and read the book yourself, I can skip good stuff without feeling too guilty about it. Can you already identify the line of thought I am focusing on? …
. Pg. 94:
“Many environmental scientists oppose the idea [of slowing down global heating] on the grounds that it would encourage business as usual and the continued emission of carbon dioxide”, which will then kill us all.
. Same paragraph:
“I agree with this analysis but think that amelioration of this [geoengineering] kind should be regarded as equivalent to dialysis as a treatment for kidney failure. It is valuable as a way to buy time. ….Who would refuse dialysis if death is the alternative?”
. However, what I have skipped is that” If heat stops the irresponsible polluters, some of us might survive. But if we allow business as usual to continue, carbon dioxide will kill all life-forms, including oxygen producing ones.
. Pg. 96:
. “It seems there is no shortage of geoengineering methods to offset global heating. Used alone they are no cure, since carbon dioxide would continue to increase and do damage in other ways than heating, but they could usefully provide a stay of execution”.
. Pg. 102:
“The rapidity of the pollution gives the Earth system little time to adjust”.
. Same page: We also seem to be ignorant that
. “There are differences between the Earth 55 million years ago and now.” In other words, the people who are using models, to predict the future, don’t even look at the Earth’s past.
. Pg. 103:
. “What are the planetary health risks of geoengineering intervention? …. Putative geoengineers are in a similar position to that of physicians before the 1940s ….Wise physicians knew that letting nature take its course without intervention would often allow natural self-regulation to make the cure. They were not averse to claiming credit for their skill when this happened. I think the same may be true about planetary medicine: our ignorance of the Earth system is overwhelming and intensified by the tendency to favour model simulation over experiment, observation and measurement.
. Same page:
“Are we sufficiently talented to take on what might become the onerous permanent task of keeping the Earth in homeostasis?” …
. Same paragraph:
“…. Even if we succeeded it would not be long before we faced the additional problem of ocean acidification. This would need another medicine, and so on. We could find ourselves enslaved in a Kafkaesque world from which there was no escape.”
. May I remind you that we were looking for the “IdentifiAble(ptMg)” line of thought (B) behind the words (C) I have quoted here. …
. Same page:
“The alternative is the acceptance [Pg, 104 starts here] of a massive natural cull of humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself.
. “Whatever we do as geoengineers is unlikely to stop dangerous climate change or prevent death on a scale that makes all previous wars, famines and disasters small, but to continue ‘business as usual’ could be worse and would probably kill most of us during the century. …. As with nineteenth-century medicine, the best option may be kind words and painkillers, but otherwise doing nothing [“Doing Nothing(WeiWu)” is all over the Ching] and letting Nature take its course.”
. Same page:
“....if ….geoengineering can buy us a little time than we must use it. But the people who have the “official version” of the truth will not allow us to do that. According to them, James is just a stupid “fear-monger”. Did you manage to identify the general idea behind these few quotes? …
. Here comes the last paragraph of this chapter:
. “Perhaps the greatest value of the Gaia concept lies in its metaphor of a living Earth, which reminds us that we are part of it and that our contract with Gaia is not about human rights alone, but includes human obligations.”
. So what is your verdict? …
Mine is: If you don’t understand something well enough, don’t mess around with it.
===================================================================
December 2, 2010
. The first five lines of the November 26 section contain a valuable lesson. “…. ‘will’ is the connective in this straightforward sentence.”
. Whenever the connective of a sentence is, “will be”, “brings about” or “causes”, the subject of the sentence is the cause and its predicate is its effect.
. Causes become effects. There you have an example of a simple subject-connective-predicate sentence. In sentences like that you have the cause-effect “DyAd(dyad)”, whatever the poles in a particular polarity might be.
. Every cause produces its effect. Whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap (Gal. 6:7). The Hindus call it the law of karma. God “will render to every man according to his deeds (Rom.2:6).” Our faith (A), knowledge (B) or beliefs (C) can also produce effects. If B “Aligns(%8)” itself to A, C to B and D to C then the cause at A takes effect at D.
. The parable of the “Sower and the seed (Mt. 13:3), comes to mind. If the lower aligns itself to the level above its own then A’s seed can be reaped at B, B’s seed can be reaped at C and C’s seed can be reaped at D. In other words: …
The instructions of the coder, or contractor, (C) can be carried-out by the computer or the sub-contractors on level D.
. The reason I have spelled out the C-D relationship in more detail is because on level D we can actually see the effect of C’s words on D’s deeds. Level D is more concrete, more tangible, than level A, But A-B, B-C and C-D are analogous to each other. Why? …
If you don’t at least try to stop and think why these three “DyAds(dyad)” within the A-B-C-D tetrad are analogous to each other, it is less likely that you will understand this bit of systematics. By making this intellectual effort, you are going against what the social engineers have programmed you to do. It takes a good communicator to take you around that programming. Right now, what I hope to accomplish here, is to reach that communicator. So please bear with me:
. What happens between A and B can be better understood if you know what happens between C and D. Why? …
Why is a complete interrogative sentence. I am not answering the question right away to give you another chance to answer, or try to answer, it yourself. …
The reason A-B, B-C and C-D are analogous to each other is …
Because they are all “DyAds(dyad)”. All dyads, triads or all tetrads are analogous to each other. This is why the Law of …
Correspondence is universal. Systematics is about the first twelve N-Term systems. N = 1 to 12. Lao Tzu has focused on the first four: The “Monad($1)”, the “DyAd(dyad)”, the “TriAd(_3ad)” and the “Four(_4)” term system. Here is some more systematics 101: A-B, B-C and C-D are “DyAds” A-B is to B-C as B-C is to C-D. Here B-C is the connective in this “TriAd”, while A-B and C-D form the “DyAd” in this -=+ or +=- triad.
. We have covered almost all of systematics 101. So please don’t get frustrated if you didn’t get it without doing at least some thinking (B) yourself. Systematics 101 is really no more difficult than arithmetic 101. It just takes some time to get used to it. So please, give it a chance.
. What has helped me personally to understand it is the practical experience I got from working with the original IBM computer programming system for nine years. And now you know why the social engineers don’t like people like me around. And they can’t kill us all, at least not yet. They have killed a lot of programmers before the Y2K crunch was supposed to happen. It didn’t happen because they haven’t killed enough.
. The job social engineers are paid to do is to dumb us down. They must “Always Cause the People (Cn%eMn) to be Without Knowledge (WUkn) and Without the Desire (WUYÜ)” to know. Lao Tzu has spelled it out clearly “Enough(Zu)” but we are so dumbed down that we can’t even read it. If we could read (C) it then we would have a better chance to understand (B) it. And don’t think that the social engineers don’t know that. That is why in chapter 69 Lao Tzu advised us not to “Underestimate our Enemy ($jâb).” They are smart and they don’t want to lose their power over us. Put yourself into their shoes. What would you do. Look at Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. It is clear that he doesn’t want to lose his bower. Power can become addictive. What does he do? …
He already applies scare tactics to discourage those who “Dare(66)” to stand up against him. Kan(66) is in chapters 03, 30, 64, 67, 69, 73 and 74. The passage that is most relevant to what I have just said is the one in 73:
. He who is “Brave In Daring (ârto66) Will-be Killed (18ÜA);
he who is Brave In Not Daring.(ârtoPU66) Will Live (18*a)”. *a = Huo(85).
Of the two poles of “This DyAd (Tzdyad) one Likely Benefits (HuLI); the other is Likely Harmed (Hu%o).”
. In light of what I have said about dictatorships, what is Lao Tzu saying here? …
If you have trouble answering this question then you might want to look at translations of the other six passages in which Kan(66) appears. …
The rest of Ching 73 is too hard for me to chew, at least too hard to comment on. This means that I don’t have to invest the time to translate it. If you have more than one translation of it and Star's work on it then you can get it yourself. Your work on the syntax (C) of that chapter will bring the right ideas (B) to mind.
. So what do I think? …
Trying to predict what I will say is good exercise. I already told you that I think that Lao Tzu is talking about a dictatorship here. …
What will happen to you if you openly stand up against a dictator. Chavez is not even a dictator yet and it already takes “Courage(âr)” to oppose him. I have already told you what almost happened to me in Cuba. I have done nothing to bother Fidel Castro but put yourself into the shoes of the social engineers, would you like what I am saying here? …
. Lao Tzu is telling us: Don’t stand up openly against a dictator. When you are “Dead(ÜA)” you “Benefit(LI)” nobody. Only in a timocracy (B) can we be a bit more “Daring(66)” Not doing what we can for democracy (A) would be doing what our political masters want us to do. NOTHING. They know that the people united cannot be defeated. That is why they must “Always Cause the People to be Without that Knowledge”. If a critical mass of us knows the truth then the truth will set us free. The truth is common to all of us. The truth will “Unite($1)” us.
. Let me conclude this section with a positive note: The social engineers can only programme our mind (C). The mind works automatically with Automatic Energy (E6). They can cause us to compute (C) what they want us to believe (C (pistis in Greek)). They can control us in the pragmatic (D) and the syntactic (C) dimensions of semiotics, but not in the semantic dimension (B). Isn’t that nice to know? …
=====================================================
November 30, 2010
. WikiLeaks might give us an opportunity to find out more about 9/11. What information must we get from it? …
I am not a net-worker (C). It would take me too long, or I might never find the information we need. And the work that should be done in the syntactic dimension of semiotics (C) isn’t my job anyway. My dharma is to tell the net-workers (C) WHAT information we need. And what is that information? …
The verbal exchange of information between the US and British sources and their embassies in Iraq before 9/11.
In the November 28 section I have given a quote from page 139 of ANGLES & DEMONS. It is worth repeating: “GAIA
. . The planet is an organism. All of us are cells with different purposes.”
. . We “are intertwined. Serving each other. Serving the whole.”
. I will now analyze the syntax (C) of this passage. The work I will do may seem tedious, boring, or too demanding, to you. Why? …
Because it is the work that is done automatically, fast and efficiently in the syntactic dimension of semiotics (C). Aristotle has called level C of Plato’s “Divided Line (at 509d of his Republic)” the “efficient cause”. And now you know why.
. Work in the semantic dimension (B) is fuelled with Sensitive Energy (E5) in the Syntactic dimension (C) it is fuelled with Automatic Energy (E6) and in the pragmatic dimension (D) it is fuelled with Vital Energy (E7).
. Sensitive Energy (E5) is “Fixed(8b)”, or stepped down to E6, by “Practice(pr)”. With “Enough(Zu)” practice you will be “Able(ab)” to do this work fast and efficiently yourself, until then, please bear with me.
. By replacing “The planet” with “GAIA”, Gaia becomes the subject, “is an” is the connective and “organism” is the “predicate”. “PRED-I-CATE …. A statement made about the subject of the sentence. (WEBSTER’S)”. When the social engineers can make this bit of information “disappear”, they will. There is a lot of valuable information in older dictionaries you no longer find in the never ones. But let’s get some more practice with syntax 101. Have you completed the sentence, which starts with “Gaia is an …”?... Here Gaia is the subject and “is an” is the …
connective. So what is the sentence? …
‘Gaia is an organism. This is really all there is to it. Subject-connective-predicate is a “TriAd(_3ad)” and if you learn the basics of the -=+ triad from my teacher, J.G. Bennett, or from Lao Tzu, then you already know more about syntax than you knew. -=+ is a noun-verb-noun, indicative, sentence.
. All of this is syntax 101. It may be boring or too demanding for you but unless these basics are taught in school, you will never be able to do this work automatically or in your sleep. I am 75 years old. When I went to school I still got these basics. But social engineers don’t want you to know (B) the truth, they only want you to believe (C) their “official version” of the truth. The only way we can get the truth is in an alternative education, as you might get here, if you hang in there. But it should be communicated better.
. The content of the first sentence, is what Lovelock’s 178 page book is about. In the next two sentences “are” is the connective. Please read them. …
Because they are straightforward they can be attached to the first sentence as subordinate phrases. Please try. …
‘Gaia is an organism, in which we “are cells with different purposes” but we are also “intertwined”.’ We are autonomous wholes and interdependent parts. We are what Arthur Koestler has called “holons”, whole parts. For instance, to get this message out I depend on a communicator (C).
. These two sentences, or phrases, take us beyond Lovelock’s book. He hasn’t studied the Republic, the Gita or the Ching, therefore he can’t take us beyond science.
. The last two sentences are not the -=+ “TriAd(_3ad)”. What are they? …
They can be read as one imperative sentence. …
An imperative sentence is a “Monad($1)”. …
A monad, in an imperative sentence, is the verb and everything else can be treated like subordinate phrases. …
Even dogs can understand an imperative sentence. Say “Sit!” to a well trained dog to see what I mean. Try to reduce the two incomplete sentences to one imperative sentence: …
“Serve each other” to “Serve the whole”! “Serve” is the verb. The rest are details given by means of subordinate phrases. As far as syntax goes, the triad is a complete indicative sentence and the monad is a complete imperative or interrogative sentence. Sometimes details have to be added to make sense of them. Making sense is the dharma of thinkers (B) communication is the dharma of communicators (C).
. You can also reduce the two sentences to one indicative sentence: ‘By
“Serving each other” we are “Serving the whole”’. This sentence is a “DyAd(dyad)”.. “Serving each other” is the cause and “Serving the whole” is the …
effect.
. The work I have done here may seem intellectually (B) challenging but, with a bit of practice, it is not. No thought (B) is required to do what I have done here, only computation (C). f you have “Fixed(8b)” or stepped down E5 to E6 by the kind of “Practice(pr)”, I have burdened you with here, then you can do this work yourself, efficiently and fast. And then it isn’t boring, nor too hard to chew.
. It is good to know syntax 101 because when you do, you start wondering why the social engineers, who are controlling our educational system, are not teaching it. Understanding syntax also helps you to understand semiotics and then you will want to know why they have made it to “disappear”.
. Let us go back to Pg. 62 of Lovelock’s book:
“The first truly great environmental disasters will usurp the political agenda and displace many false ideas hampering change.”
. One false idea that is hampering change is that we have a democracy (A). Another one is the belief that the “first truly great environmental disasters” will not happen. And as long as they haven’t happened yet, the social engineers and their non-thinking supporters can call James a stupid “fear-monger”. But what will happen when they can no loner get away with that? When we can see the truth with our own eyes? …
What will happen when “false ideas” are “displaced” by the truth? …
Our present timocracy (B) can no longer exist. And what does that mean ? …
We have seen a dress-rehearsal of it here in Toronto at the G20 were a thousand people, most of them not involved, were thrown into jail. The questions that were asked right at the beginning were right on. But social engineers know how to get away with what they are planning (B) and executing (D). And, as long as we don’t wake up, we are no match for them. We simply can’t believe what they are doing. And they make sure that we can’t. But it seems to me that they have bitten off more than they can chew. In fact, most likely, they know it themselves.
. For instance, if we find in WikiLeaks that our political masters knew about the invasion of Iraq before 9/11, how are they going to wiggle out of that? …
They will come up with many “official” sounding “explanations” but can any one of them hold water? Can they be believable “Enough(Zu)“? …
Let us now move forward in Lovelock’s book from page 91. Chapter “5
. . . . . . . . . GEOENGINEERING
There are signs that we can treat global heating by engineering ….”
. December 1, 2010
. Yesterday I tried to carryout the “job-description” (A) I gave at the beginning of this section. I dialled: WikiLeaks.org (ENETER) and, once there, I tried Google. It is very user-friendly but all I got were things like: “…. An Iraqi intelligence officer ….during the summer before 9/11-a request President Bush denied ….Other documents reflect the high level of attention paid to Iraq well before the 9/11 attacks ….” Calling the demolition of three towers by two air-planes an “attack” by Iraq is contradicted by watching the videos about it. The information I got from WikiLeaks about 9/11 is not enough. We need actual transcripts of sources from the US and Britain to their embassies in Iraq from before 9/11. …
===================================================
November 29, 2010
. The last quote in the November 26 section is from page 63 of Lovelock’s book on Gaia: And “if we can evolve to become an integrated intelligence within Gaia then together we could” work as a team. Together with Gaia we could form a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.
. Again, what James is saying here in his own words is what Lao Tzu is saying in his own unique words: We can’t understand the Tao but we can “Make Use (dous)” of it.
Why? …
Because it “Exists as Something Undifferentiated and Complete (YUwU#Ocm)”.
. . . . .“Existence, It is For Making Profit (YU_ZYIdoLI) of
Nonexistence, Which is For Making Use (WU_ZYIdous)” of
existence, which is for making profit of non-existence, which is for ….
. “CyclicTy ($1ad), Tao’S (A1_Z) Movement (%k).”
. “My Words (myC2) are Very Easy (%tez) to Understand (kn),”. Lao Tzu’s syntax is very easy to understand because our English, subject-connective-predicate, syntax is universal.
. “See the Simple (oo*19)”. When you see how simple syntax 101 really is then you wonder why it is made to appear so complicated? …
We have the choice to consult Noam Chomsky but he doesn’t have the “official version” of syntax.
. Syntax is the connective in semiotics. Why don’t the social engineers, who are in
control of our educational system teach semiotics? …
Why do they say that syntactics (C) is semiotics (B-C-D)? ...
What do you need to answer this question? …
Semantics. And HOW do you test the answer? …
With pragmatics. Semiotics is the whole which emerges through its three parts and, having emerged, gives meaning to them. To find out the truth all three parts are needed. To find out the truth you need the questions, you need the answers and you need a way of verifying or falsifying the answers. Why did the social engineers make the last step of the scientific process and semiotics “disappear”? …
If the truth were not a treat to them then they didn’t have to make it “disappear”. Let us continue with
. Pg. 84 of the book on Gaia:
The “time it takes to [manifest an invention]….The time will be determined by the engineers and inventors, and their ability can be summed up in that phrase used by patent lawyers, ‘reducing to practice’. It sounds easy but is the crucial process that turns an invention’s rough sketch on the back of an envelope into something that might be handy to have in your kitchen. Good engineers, through a long series of small steps, can turn an amateurish idea [B] into polished practical [D] utility.”
. I am painfully aware that what James has said here is true. I had my invention of a minimum-resistance boat hull in 1964. Thousands of dollars and hours later it is still not “reduced to practice”. If I didn’t see that the idea is true because it is working, I wouldn’t keep working on it. My first $7000 patent has run out. My second $10 patent, US 6,834,605 B1 Dec. 28, 2004 is running out. I am 75 years old and I am running out of steam. All the energy I have goes into my philosophy right now. My boat is on the bottom shelf on one of the floating docks in the Reese Street slip at Harbour front here in Toronto. It is painted in a nice blue, but already needs repairs. So much for that story.
. Pg. 85:
“…. From the expensive daily advertisements of energy companies you might imagine that cheap and abundant green energy was on sale now. It is not: the attraction of green energy schemes is simply the feedback of a portion of the subsidy, not that they are inherently or could compete in the marketplace on their merits alone.”
. Isn’t this “fear-monger” terrible? …
We got a good thing going and he has to shoot it down again.
. Pg. 86:
“Too often the strident over-optimistic cries of entrepreneurs or trade lobbies trump sound and practical advise.” Another passage worth remembering.
. Pg. 91: With
“women empowered and well educated would provide an automatic curb to population growth.” James touches on “education” And because he tells us that we have a democracy he doesn’t differentiate between a democratic education and the one we have. We have come to the end of chapter 4.
==================================================
November 28, 2010
. On page 71 of James Lovelock's book on Gaia he said: “Good stories require a cast of demons and angels”. What comes to mind for me is the question: HOW can we get out of the mess James has described so well? …
Read page 139 of ANGELS & DEMONS: “ GAIA
. . The planet is an organism. All of us are cells with different purposes.
. . And yet are intertwined. Serving each other. Serving the whole.”
. HOW can this ideal be achieved? …
By means of the division of labor, as described in Plato’s Republic, the Tao Te Ching or the Bhagavad Gita. Gita 18.45 sums up what doing your dharma is about but 18.41-44 is the “official version” of it, it is what the wise elders intend to establish after their “kingdom comes”. Please Google: Protocols of Zion division of labour
In the November 26 section I said: “So why out of the seven years they [don’t] take seven weeks to teach to teach computer scientist to program? …” …
Because of the mistakes I have to tell you now what I intended to say:
. Why don’t the social engineers, who control our educational system, take seven weeks out of the seven years, it takes to teach “computer science”, to teach computer programming? …
. This is a short section because I have given you lots to think about.
=================================================
November 27, 2010
. The title of chapter 4 of The Vanishing Face of GAIA is:
. . . . . . ENERGY AND FOOD SOURCES
This subject is outside my sphere of specialization, therefore I can skip more than I could in previous chapters.
. . . . . . . . . SOLAR ENERGY ….
. . . . . . NUCLEAR ENERGY
This is the one James has decided on. Let me go back to
. Pg 25:
“’cognitive dissonance’ ….It operates when we chose between two almost equal objects and, having chosen, invest our choice with superlative advantage” while ignoring, or minimizing, its disadvantages. This is the thought to keep in mind when reading this chapter. I don’t know “Enough(Zu)” about this subject to say much about it. So I safe myself a lot of typing by saying very little.
. Pg. 66:
“True enough, the world total of domestic and industrial emissions of 30 gigatons of carbon dioxide annually is far too great, but so are the consequences of too many people competing for land with the natural forests of the world.”
. Pg. 70:
“The nuclear waste is a minor burial problem but the carbon dioxide waste will kill us all if we go on emitting it.”
. If we all get killed, Gaia’s effort of creating us will be wasted and, according to James, she may not have a chance to try again. It may be game over for her.
. Same page:
. “Another falsehood is ….
. “These errors would be harmless were they not continuously propagated and amplified [by “Repetition(@1)”] by all branches of the media.”
. The mass media is owned by capitalists (D), who are working towards the same goal, or who are serving the same master.
. Pg. 71:
. “Few engage in propaganda merely as a hobby, so who benefits from it? The media to some extent but …. The main benefactors …. Are much more sinister, ….
. “As a scientist who lately became a writer I realize just how difficult it must be to write a good column weekly for a year. …. I could not conceive a harder task than having to …. Type up …. To a deadline while obeying political and editorial constrains;”
. In a truly “free” press, there wouldn’t be these political (C) and editorial constrains. The editorial constrains come from the capitalist (D) owners. He who pays the piper calls the tune. That the people who buy the paper pay to be informed must lead to “cognitive dissonance” but who wants to lose his job for telling the truth? …
. Same paragraph:
“Good stories require a cast of demons and angels; ….”
. Pg. 75:
. “So who benefits from the propaganda? Normally the media can smell a rat better than a hungry terrier, and I was slightly surprised that they did not wonder more about the murder of the Russian dissident Litvinenko in 2007 in London. …. A poisonous dose of polonium 210 will cost about ten million dollars”. That is the poison he was killed with.
. James devotes a whole page to show what a good story that murder would have been for the media. I am not going to type a whole page but, if you read it yourself, you might suspect, as I do, that the writers were constrained from saying what is on that page.
. Pg. 76:
“Moreover it [the content of page 75] grows more credible as we move into the twenty-first century, when political power and business opportunities will more and more be linked to energy supply.” And about this, Linda McQuaig has a lot to say.
. The chapter on . . . . “FOSSIL FUELS” starts at
. Pg. 77:
“It is not the amount that we have burned but the rapidity with which we are doing it that matters.” This can be taken like an aphorism and repeated like a mantra because these facts affect us all, especially when you are younger than I am.
. Same paragraph:
“It is not the fuel that is damaging but the balance sheet of its production and use. …. If there were only 100 million of us on the earth we could do almost anything we liked without harm. At 7 billion”, even breathing is wrong. Energy, like like knowledge, is power. Power, as such, is neither good nor bad. It is what we use it for that makes it so.
. Same paragraph:
“Seven billion …. is too many for a planet that tries to self regulates its climate.”
. P 79:
“It is rarely mentioned that if methane leaks into the air before it is burned, it has a greenhouse effect almost twenty times greater than carbon dioxide.”
. When does this “fear-monger” stop scaring us? Because this “is rarely mentioned” it might be worth mentioning here. But there is a lot more good stuff, I have to skip.
. Pg. 80:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . “RENEWABLE ENERGY
Renewable energy is usually defined as energy generated from natural resources --- such as wind, sunlight, flowing water, tides, geothermal heat, biofuels and the burning of biomass --- which are naturally renewed.” But …
. Pg. 81:
. “The adjective ‘renewable’ is used as a human value judgement it has no basis in science.” Energy can be converted, and any use of it is a conversion, but energy can’t be lost. I sense that there is a connection between this and J.G. Bennett’s 12 ENERGIES.
. Same page:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .”WIND ENERGY
Like nuclear, wind energy is one of the more contentions and vexatious of energy sources.”
. Pg. 82:
“I chose to live here because I treasure this, one of the few remaining areas of countryside largely unaffected by urban influence or industrial farming, and see it as an example of how people and the land can live together in a seemly way. ….I see that land as the face of Gaia.” Since this land is threatened, the title of this book.
=================================================
November 26, 2010
. Here is the quote from Pg. 52 of Lovelock’s book again: Clever
“inventions and progress will provide the shoehorn that fits us into our imaginary niche.”
. The subject of this sentence is the cause of the effect it “will” produce. “will” is the connective in this straightforward sentence.
. I am 75 years old and when I went to school, syntactics was taught in all of its simplicity. Part of social engineering is to complexify things to make people feel stupid. A good example of this is the original IBM computer programming system. It was taught in seven weeks. My former business partner, Jim, had to call me in because his new business partner couldn’t do a job after 7 years of university. I did it in half a day. What happened? …
Jim’s new business partner didn’t have a black box that could handle this particular job. In other words, computer scientists are not taught to programme. They are only taught to use black boxes. If they have no black box for a job they are lost. Why do our political masters need seven years to teach “political scientists” to use black boxes when it takes only seven weeks to teach them how to programme? …
My partner knew that I could do the job, that's why he got me to do it. So why out of the seven years they take seven weeks to teach to teach computer scientists to program? ...
They don’t want people to know HOW to fix their next Y2K type virus.
. Another example of complexification is syntactics (C). It is the connective in the B-C-D triad. Semantics (B), syntactics (C) and pragmatics (D) are the parts of which semiotics is the whole. But students are taught that syntactics is semiotics, that the part is the whole. The students are being lied to because their teachers, or their bosses, know that it is not.
. “And if one selfishly sees a thing as if it were everything, independent of the ONE and the many, then one is in the darkness of ignorance Gita 18,22 Mascaró).”
. If the social engineers can get us to believe that a part is the whole then they are putting us “in the darkness of ignorance”. Unless you know WHAT the science of social engineering is about, what I have just said will seem “Ridiculous(*41)” to you. It is supposed to. What is semiotics? …
Semiotics is the whole which emerges through its parts and, having emerged, gives meaning to them. As long as the social engineers can make us believe that syntactics (C) is semiotics (B-C-D), The B-C-D triad can never emerge through less than the full set of its parts. Social engineers must know that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. As long as they can make us believe that a part is the whole, they can complexify the part all they want but we can not possibly understand it. Put yourself into their shoes. If you are paid to dumb us down, HOW would you do it? …
. Pg. 54:
“Increasing heat and forest ecosystem destruction to provide farmland [and farmland destruction for housing] will continue and hasten the conversion of rainforests to scrub and desert.” Just look at what a scary picture this “fear-monger” is painting. Don’t believe him. He doesn’t know what he is talking about. We are the only ones who have (the “official version” of) the truth.
. Pg. 57:
“ Nothing is certain; and I have to allow that none of this may happen. Instead, one or more of the several proposals to geoengineer the Earth and stop global heating might work, or …., or the models that predict the climate are even more wrong than I thought they were.”
. We are on page 57 and what I have learned so far is that, in his own words, James says the same thing Lao Tzu is saying “Repeatedly(@1)” in so many different words: Don’t mess around with what you don’t understand well “Enough(Zu)”! Do the work you came here to do and don’t interfere with other people who are doing their dharma.
. Pg. 58:
“….and I do think it [this “carbon dioxide” idea] has a chance of halting global heating. But having said this, and knowing our obstinate desire to continue with business as usual, I doubt that if it is tried, it will be done to a sufficient extent to realize its promise.”
. Look how negative this “fear-monger” is. There we have a good idea and he has nothing better to do than to shoot it down.
. Pg. 59:
“Not only must we survive but we must stay civilized and not degenerate into mob rule where gang leaders promote themselves as warlords.”
. Same page:
“The land available for agriculture competes with housing and industry, and unless we act soon more of it may be disabled as the numbers inhabiting our small nation steadily increase.”
. Pg. 61;
“Orderly survival requires an unusual degree of human understanding and leadership and may require, as in war, the suspension of democratic government”.
. For one thing we don’t have a democratic government (A). An opponent of Hugo Chavez asked” Do we even know what a democratic government is? …
James is doing a bit of social engineering here, by telling us that we have a democracy (A) when we have a timocracy (B). And by telling us that we need a dictatorship he is saying what the timocrats have already in mind. I am a bit disappointed to find out here that James hasn’t even read Plato’s Republic. It is as my teacher, J.G. Bennett, has said: Writing books is a fast way to hell.
. Truth is the lifeblood of democracy. A key to survival is education. But …
it has to be a democratic education. None of the other three governments can teach the truth in their educational system and allow the media to tell the people the truth. Why? …
Because if the people know the truth it will set them free.
. Pg 62:
“We have no option but to make the best of national cohesion and accept that war and the warlords are part of it.
. Same page:
“The first truly great environmental disasters will usurp the political agenda and displace many false ideas hampering change.
. Same page:
“….’You are doing it again --- anthropomorphizing the Earth, talking of it as alive.’ But I say to them, ‘If its not alive then how can it die?” …
. Steiner comes to mind: He compared the soil to a sick patient. To keep him alive you have to increase the dose of medicine. One day, you increase the dose again, but the patient is dead. No matter how much more medicine you administer now, it no longer makes any difference. Steiner compares this to what we are doing to the soil. To get the same yield, we must increase the amount of chemical fertilizer. There comes a point at which it no longer matters how much fertilizer we dump on a field. Not even weeds will grow on it anymore. When the soil is dead, it will not produce anything anymore. You don’t have to be a biodynamic farmer to know that this is so.
. Pg. 63:
“Our obligation as an intelligent species is to survive; and if we can evolve to become an integrated intelligence within Gaia, then together we could survive longer.”
. We have reached the end of chapter 3 and something to think about. …
==============================================
November 25, 2010
. Pg. 51 of Lovelock’s book on Gaia again:
. “Human nature, …., impairs our chances.” We have a complete Subject, connective, predicate sentence here but the connective is unusual. …
See it in the quote, in yesterdays section, below. …
Let us turn the subject and the subordinate phrase, between the commas, into a sentence. …
Human nature is “the behaviour that comes from the intelligence that evolution has given us. So far I have only applied syntactics 101 automatically (C) with Automatic Energy (E6). I “Do this Without Using (doWUdo)” the intellect (B). The mind (C) can do this work much more efficiently than the intellect can do it. There is an internal division of labour in us. If you know syntactics 101 all you have to do is compute (C) representations. You don’t have to think (B) to do syntactics (C).
. But the moment you ask: What does the sentence mean, you are moving up into the semantic dimension of semiotics. (B). …
Our intellect presents us with choices. It tells us what will probably happen if we do this or that. No choice, no freedom of choice. With the freedom of choice comes the responsibility for the effects of what we are causing.
. Through “Repetition(@1)” we become so familiar with syntactics that what I have done here happens almost automatically (C). Since there is no choice involved we are not responsible for our actions. A person kills somebody but he did it automatically, he had no choice. He didn’t intent to kill the victim. Therefore he is not guilty. Right? …
Not quite. He had the choice to program himself or to allow social engineers to program him. But here things are getting more complicated.
. I hope that you can see the difference between the semantic (B), syntactic (C) and pragmatic (D) dimension of semiotics. As D is to C so C is to B.
. Pg. 52:
. “Our contemporary industrial civilization is hopelessly unfitted to survive on an overpopulated and under-resourced planet,”.
. Notice the comma at the end of an otherwise complete sentence. What is in front of the connective, “is”, is the subject and what is behind it is the predicate. Syntactics 101 tells us automatically that a subordinate phrase is following what otherwise would be a complete sentence. We can also automatically read the phrase: “ …., deluded by the thought that clever inventions and progress will provide the shoehorn that fits us into our imaginary niche.” We have here a subordinate phrase that can easily be translated into a sentence. And to do that work, we don’t have to think. With a bit of practice we can do syntactic work much more efficiently with Automatic Energy (E6). But we can’t move into the semantic dimension (B) before we have completed the work in the syntactic dimension (C).
. At Ching 56 Lao Tzu tells us that thought and word form a “Unit($1), called a “DyAd(dyad)”.
. Pg. 53:
“Our brains are belief engines [where our brain (D) is the computer, our mind (C) is the coder and our intellect (B) is the programmer. As above, in “Heaven so Below (Tn_-)”, on earth. Because of the Law of Correspondence there are these correspondences and our mind (C) can make these associations automatically.] that employ associative learning to seek and find patterns. Superstition and belief in magic are millions of years old, whereas science, with its clever ways …. is only a only a few hundred years old.”
. If you know some social engineering, you can find references to it in the Bible, the Ching, the Gita, the Republic and other books which are over 2000 years old. But it only became a science since we had science and psychology.
If our political masters are not listening to us, or to the messages which come to us through our soul (A) then we have the timocracy (B) we have. Because politics (C) is closer to philosophy (B) than economics (D), Lao Tzu uses examples from politics as well as material (D) examples like “Pots(ut)” etc.
. Pg. 54: A
“submarine is limited as to the population it could sustain so why should we imagine that the Earth has an unlimited capacity for people?” …
. That question should keep you busy for a while. …
======================================================
November 24, 2010
. In yesterday’s section, below this one, I said: “My area of specialization is semantics (B).” What is the area of specialization of the communicators (C)? …
Syntactics (C). What is the area of specialization of the pragmatists (D)? …
Pragmatics (D). What is the area of specialization of the visionaries (A)? …
Semiotics (B-C-D). Let us continue with Lovelock’s book.
. Page 50:
. “Meanwhile climate change progresses remorseless, now driven by …. There is no tipping point; we are sliding down a bumpy slope that grows ever steeper” as it grows steeper. We have here the Law of attraction at work because of which it is safe to say that in less than seven years the “official version” of climate change will become impossible to sell, even to dumbed down citizens.
. Think about the following facts: As population grows, more babies are born. As they grow up they produce more babies. Many of them start producing more babies by the time they are 16. So this vicious cycle keeps growing at an accelerating rate.
. Dictatorship is definitely the worst type of government, but nothing less can enforce the rational decision that a family may only have two children in China. And even that measure will not reduce the dangerous level of population we have now. Only when more responsible parents will voluntarily restrict themselves to one child can the population be reduced. Will that happen? …
In theory it can; in practice it will not. It is, as James said: …
“Business as usual.”. What can stop us from destroying the Earth? …
The Earth, or Gaia, we are leaving her no choice.
. Same paragraph:
“Too easily forgotten is Gaia’s need, we have to leave enough natural ecosystems on land and in the ocean for planetary self regulation.” And, even “Knowing that we Don’t Understand (knPUkn)” the system we are a part of, it is impossible to give Gaia the space she needs without a drastic reduction of population.
. Pg. 51:
“But here is a book [AN APPEAL TO REASON] denying global heating written …. as if the author were the defence council for the deniers of climate change.”
. Same page:
“A great deal of the heat of global heating has gone into …. melting ice. …. But once the ice has melted …. Global heating will proceed even faster than before. “ But you no worry, people who say stupid things like that are only “fear-mongers”. By me “Repeating(@1)” this thing, I am doing what the social engineers are doing. Same page:
. “Human nature, the behaviour that comes from the intelligence that evolution has given us, impairs our chances.”
. There we have another mantra that is worth repeating. As I said before: Knowledge is power. And power can be used for good and evil causes. Knowledge both impairs and improves our chances depending on how it is used. As long as our political masters don't share their knowledge with us, they don't want us to know what they are using it for.
..Pg. 52:
“The wings of our brains are fine-tuned by evolution to survive in the world of 1 million years ago, but we are …. Ill equipped to survive in the 21st century Earth that we have made”. …
. Some quotes are short because typing is not my dharma. But one reason I can skip good stuff without too much discomfort is because these incomplete passages might cause you to think about them and to ask yourself about what context I might have lifted them out of. …
==========================================================
November 23, 2010
. At the end of the last section I said:
“Day comes before night;
Night comes before day.” Can you say this better? …
As night follows day so day follows night. This is another one of those mantras that are worth repeating. This exercise also got me to do another translation of Ching 25.4.
As “Man Follows Earth (mnähTI)
so Earth Follows Heaven (TIähTn). as earth follows heaven
so Heaven Follows Tao (TnähA1) and as heaven follows tao
so Tao Follows ItSelf (A1ähTuJa).”
. The Creator’s creative process is similar to the human creative process except that the Creator not only speaks the “Word(C2)” but is the Word (C) himself. We can observe the human creative process in the construction business and the IBM computer processing system, which, for good reasons, was made to “disappear”. In this system, as D follows C so C follows B, and as C follows B so B follows A. Here comes
. Pg. 46 of Lovelock’s book on Gaia:
“Scientists who recognize the truth about the Earth’s condition, advise their governments of its deadly seriousness in the manner of a physician. We are now seeing the responses.” Yes, let’s call these witch doctors “fear-mongers”. We have also seen a “response” here in Toronto as a result of the G/20 war-measures.
. But suppose in seven years, or less, Lovelock can say: “I told you so.”? …
As the ice melts, less and less sunlight is reflected and more and more heat is absorbed by the Earth. We are witnessing an example of the Law of Attraction. As a result Lovelock’s predictions can be verified more quickly. It is only a matter of time when we can see the “official versions” of the truth for what they are with our own eyes. In fact, we don’t have to wait to see, we can read and study Lovelock’s book or watch the videos on 9/11 right now. Because you can read the book yourself, I don’t feel so bad skipping all that good stuff.
. Pg. 47:
. “So far as I am aware no one at Bali or other UN meetings was directly concerned about Gaia or considered the response of the living Earth to what we are doing to it. In fact, as the Earth warms, and long before the dateline of 2050, ….”
. Their own “model” based predictions will be falsified in less than seven years.
. Pg. 48:
“When world leaders ask us to follow them to the inviting green pastures ahead” then they should go there themselves first. If they tell us that there are green pastures fourteen years ahead, and in fourteen years they are not there then they have been lying to us.
. Pg 49; We
“could not have avoided reaching our current overpopulated and unsustainable state. We are what we are and there is little that we could have done to avoid what now seem adverse changes; we should not feel guilty about it.”
. There is some truth in this statement but it must be qualified: …
We can think (B), talk (C), and walk (D), We all have these “talents (Mt. 25:15)” but not in the same measure. They are given “to every man according to his several ability”. According to how faithfully he has used the talents he has received already. The parable of the talents is about what happens to a man who buries his talents. The Hindus say that doing or not doing our dharma has to do with the law of karma. Every cause has its effect. “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for ‘whatever a man soweth, that shall he also reap (Gal. 6:7).”
. The talent that predominates in you is determined by which level on Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)” you are on. If those who are above your level have done their dharma, then you have no excuse for not doing yours. This can be explained by means of the construction business example. …
Try to think it through before reading about it. …
If the customer (A) has enough money to pay for the job but gives the wrong description of the mansion he wants build then he must not complain when he gets what s/he has asked for. What about the architect (B)? …
. If the architect gets the right description of the building he is supposed to design and he draws the wrong blueprint of it, what then? …
. If the contractor (C) gets the right blueprint but gives the wrong instructions to his subcontractors (D), what then? …
. If the contractor gives the right instructions to his subcontractors but they don’t carry them out properly, or they go on strike, what then? …
. The only person I can talk about with authority is myself. My area of specialization is semantics (B). The Hindus would call me a jnana yogi. A jnana yogi is a person who follows the path of knowledge (B). In fact, when I was at Shri Kripalu Maharaj’s ashram in India his disciples called me :The crazy jnani. But their Guru knew what I was there for. He has helped me to understand Plato’s Republic. Not bad for a bhakti yogi (A). A bhakti is a person who is following the path of devotion.
. I was told that Kripalu means poet. For poets see Winthrop Sargeant’s footnote on Gita 4.16. If they had not produced the Gita, the Ching and other books like that then I couldn’t have done my dharma. And if the jnana yogis didn’t put out their ideas in books and on the internet then the raja yogis, or communicators, (C) couldn’t do their dharma. And if the communicators don’t do their dharma then the karma yogis (D) can’t do their dharma. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts but it is only as strong as its weakest part. Break one link of a chain and you break the chain.
. Same page:
“…. People will continue with farming, business and government as usual.”
. This must be qualified by what I have said above. If A (E4) follows Creative Energy (E3), B (E5) follows A, C (E6) follows B and D (E7) follows C then all are following E3 and Gaia might reach us through Creative Energy.
. Same page:
“ We often forget that an [page 50 starts here] industrialist’s duty is to his or her company’s shareholders, not to the community or the government, and certainly not to the planet.”
. I didn’t plan it that way, but can you see the connection here? …
If we “Align(8b)” ourselves with what comes into our time and space dimension through A, then we are following the highest vision (A); if we are motivated by the money (D) then we are following the lowest common denominator.
.
=====================================================
November 22, 2010
. In the last section I said: “Now Steiner comes to the pentad and what he says will shed light on Ching 5.’’ The “Ching 5” should have been: Ching 3. This is an interesting mistake because the “Intelligent People (wsmn)” are the same ones in both chapters. In an “Intelligent Man’S Government (wsmn_Z85)” the decisions are not made by the people (A) nor by their elected politicians (C) but by their unelected advisers (B).
. Decisions are based on what we know (B), what we aspire to (A) or want (C). In other words, our feelings (A) or emotions (C) determine HOW we use what we know.
. Decisions are not made by our intellect (B), it only determines the probability of the success of our actions (D). If a theory (B) is true then it will work in practice (D). In this sense knowledge is power, whether it is used for good or evil purposes.
. In the B-C-D triad B is the initiating impulse, C is the connective and D produces the outcome. But this triad is not the only triad involved in the decision-making process. In the A-B-C-D tetrad are many more triads than the six we can have with B, C and D.
. In the quote from Steiner we have the phrase: “the spirit self”. Could that self of the spirit be the A-B-C “TriAd(_3ad)” which the Chinese poets call Hsin)Hs)? …
By phrasing my theories as a question I don’t have to remind you that all I am doing here is to give you untested theories that are still in need of verification or falsification.
So much for systematics. Let us now continue with Lovelock’s book:
. Pg. 42:
“The real Earth responds [Pg. 43 starts here] to our actions in a way very different from that forecast by well behaved models. …. It seems that governments find forecasts like this easier to tolerate and more comfortable than the vacillating fluctuations of real observations. Large models have an authority from which policies can be drafted, conclusions drawn and grand [“official” sounding] pronouncements made at places such as Kyoto and Bali. ….”
. Same page:
. “A last reason for my disquiet about forecasts based on models arises because I earn my living and fund my research …. (If you are curious to know more about this side of my life it is in my autobiography HOMAGE TO GAIA.]
. “This third component of my knowledge base [This would be the ideas (B) that have become representations (C)] has taught me that [Pg. 44 starts here] above all, humans hate any conspicuous change in their daily way of life and view of the future. As Bertrand Russell put it, 'The average man would rather face death or torture than think.’”
. Think what a powerful bit of knowledge this is in the hands of social engineers. …
. Same page:
“The task of the IPCC has barely started and their failure to account for even the current climate suggests they might need a new scientific approach, perhaps one that models the Earth as a single physiological system, not as a consensus model cooked from a biodiverse stew of scientific disciplines.” Same page:
“The further we go along the path of business as usual the more we are lost.”
“The(_H) further you go (CuäE$t)
.The(_H) less you know (smäEkn)(knäEsm).”
I love these short quotes, not only because it is less typing for me but because they can be taken as aphorisms, remembered and intentionally repeated. Why …
“Intentionally(4P)” repeat what you already know? …
By repeating an idea often “Enough(Zu)” it becomes automatic (E6).
Automatic thoughts (B) are representations (C).
To think (B) thoughts we need Sensitive Energy (E5).
To compute (C) representations we are fuelled by Automatic Energy (E6).
This is why the social engineers “Repeat(@1) what they want us to believe.
. It is as Steiner said: Thinking must be willed. HOW we compute is predetermined by HOW we are programmed or how we are programming ourselves. After that the computing happens automatically.
. I know that this can be confusing but remember that social engineering is a science. It would be unrealistic to expect to learn it in a day. Just put yourself into their shoes: Would you make it easy for us to understand these things? …
Computer programming and semiotics make it easier for us to understand. In fact, most of what I am saying here is due to nine years of programming with the original IBM programming system. Are you still in their shoes? …
What would you do about that tetrad and semiotics? …
. Pg. 45:
.. “I sense the onset in science of a battle between those who live by theory and those of us who go out on to the Earth to observe and measure..”
. The battle is bound to become more intense because the gap between the “official versions” of the truth and the truth is bound to become wider.
. But we need theories (B) first, to have something to verify or to falsify by observation an measurements. Don't you agree? ...
. same paragraph:
“Charles Darwin did not travel the Earth to prove a theory. He was a supreme observer and naturalist: the theory was developed later” after the observations. Does that falsify my assertion that “you need theories (B)”? …
I stand corrected. I have focused on one half of this “Before – After (#c60)” “DyAd(dyad)” and James has focused on the other half. In this particular context we have focused on a part and forgot about the dyad as a whole.
. “Properly “Aligned Words Likely Reverse (%8C2JO$l).”
Day comes before night;
Night comes before day.
. We have reached the end of chapter two. A good placet to call it a day.
==========================================================
November 21, 2010
. The Vanishing Face of GAIA by James Lovelock is 178 pages long. We have reached page 32. But before we move on, we must return to the quote from page 30:
“Professional scientists are usually specialists trained in a specific discipline or group of disciplines.” The specific disciplines are the parts while a group of disciplines is their whole. I have given semiotics as an example of this whole – part dyad. This dyad seems to be fundamental to Gaia theory because where Gaia is the whole, everything else, including us, are its parts.
. At the end of yesterday’s section, I said: Most lessons in the Tao Te Ching don’t go beyond the tetrad.” But were they do, we must pay attention.
. I systematics the “Systemic Attribute” of the pentad is SIGNIFICANCE. “Subsidiary descriptive terms” are “Potentiality and Meaning”. Let us get some more info on potentiality from page 42 of Steiner’s Occult Signs and Symbols: “With the entrance into the fourth condition a being becomes fully visible to eyes that can see external things.” The “Triad Produces All external Things (_3SgWnwU).” Different words (C), same idea (B).
. Now Steiner comes to the pentad and what he says will shed light on Ching 5.
. “Five is the number of evil. This will become clear to us if we again consider human beings. In their development men have become fourfold beings and thereby beings of the created world. Here on earth, however, the fifth member of their being, the spirit self, will be added. Were we to remain fourfold beings, they would be constantly directed by the gods --- toward the good, of course --- but they would never develop their independence. They have become free through the gift f their germinal fifth member, but it is also from this that they have received the ability to do evil.” The choice is ours. Gaia has to take that chance. And chances are that some of us will make the right choice. Not all of us have allowed ourselves to be totally dumbed down.
. There are many important details in Lovelock’s book but I have to restrict myself to quotes that will bring out the significance of the whole – part “DyAd(dyad)”.
. Pg. 36:
“Yes, if we implement in full the recommendations made at Bali within a year, far from stabilizing the climate, it could grow hotter not cooler. This is why I said in THE REVENGE OF GAIA, ‘We live in a fool’s climate and damned whatever we do.’” It also means that the people who want us to believe the “official version” of climate control take us for “fools” or are they “fools” themselves”? ...
“The Fool” is the “Opposite(Fy)” of the “Wise Man(wsmn)” In life and in the Ching, things come in “Pairs(dy)” so it is permissible to translate Ching 71.3 as follows:
. “The Fool(heho) is Sick Sick(@p@p) he doesn’t know that he doesn’t know ThereFore(SiYI) he does Not feel Sick (PU@p).”
. I believe that social engineers are very clever manipulators who know HOW to make fools out of us. But most of our political masters also lack the humility to admit that they “Don’t Understand PUkn)” the whole they are a part of.
. Pg. 37:
. “Ramanathan has alerted us to the fact that these new pollution clouds [from China and Inia] are considerably darker than their predecessors from the US and Europe. They contain soot that absorbs sunlight, whereas the lighter aerosols mainly reflect sunlight. This makes the assessment of their effect on climate even more difficult.”
. We see here and elsewhere that computerized “models” can’t duplicate the real world.
. Same page:
“In so very many different ways living tings affect the climate as well as being affected by it”. Properly “Aligned Words Likely Reverse (%8C2JO$l)” as they just did here.
. Pg. 38:
. “Climatologists sometimes seem to think that the temperature of the leaves of a forest canopy can be calculated simply from knowledge of the albedo, that is the proportion of sunlight reflected back, of the forest. We forget that trees are alive and can regulate their leaf temperature physiologically.”
. Some climatologists can’t see the forest for the trees.
. Same page:
“What some atmospheric physicists seem unaware of is the link between climate and the physiology of the forest.”
. There are pages of details following these general assertions but I can’t quote them all. But it is nice when I can quote from the Ching to show that there is a correspondence between that ancient wisdom and true science.
. Same page:
. “Another illustration of the way that models are not of the real world concerns the water vapour in the air. ….”
. And there are many more illustrations of that. How can the social engineers get away with making all of these facts “disappear”? …
The same way they make other facts, like what really happened on 9/11, “disappear”.
. Pg. 40:
“The IPCC is right to think that it will take thousands of years to undo the harm that we have done and that in our terms there is no going back. They are also right about carbon dioxide emissions: the response time of the Earth to carbon dioxide change is of the order of 100 years. But it is wrong to think that nothing can happen rapidly in climate change.”
. These assertions are testable hypotheses which the social engineers can not prevent us from testing. As the climate changes more “rapidly” the “official version” of climate change is falsified more rapidly. As I said before: I am really curious how the social engineers are going to make the gap between their “official version” of the truth and the truth “disappear”.
. Same page:
. “It is not mere speculation to challenge the idea that nothing can happen in the next thirty years that will alter the course of climate change.” Again, examples follow of what has already happened that has altered “the course of climate change.” How many facts contradicting the “official versions” of climate change can the social engineers get us to ignore? …
Pg. 41:
. “In addition to these uncertainties climate forecasters are obliged to model atmospheric physics when they should be modelling Gaia, or at least the whole Earth system” instead of only some of its parts.
. Same page:
. “At this point I feel that a more general observation about climate change is needed. If we stand back and consider all the other perturbations possible to our self-regulating Earth, we see that the presence of 7 billion people aiming for first-world comforts is too much.” And this is the same conclusion Ervin Laszlo has also reached with his “modelling”. And doing any more typing is getting too much for me. But isn’t this book fascinating? I will do one more.
. Same page:
. “By assuming that the climate is mainly a physical property of the Earth’s surface environment we leave out” the system as a whole. Semiotics, the construction business and the original computer programming system can help us understand what James is saying here. The fact that the social engineers have caused life examples of the B-C-D triad and the A-B-C-D tetrad to “disappear” means what? …
. Leaving you with that question is a good way to conclude this section.
=========================================================
November 20, 2010
. There is a mistake in yesterday’s section. Obviously “J.Wu” didn’t translate the Neiye. These obvious, or stupid, mistakes tell me to pay more attention to the passages the mistakes are in. Here is Neiye 13 line I again:
3I: “Relax your effort to(*? Roth) try to Figure-out or to Control It (*k85_Z).”
. *? is Roth's translation of the first character. *k = Nien61: “To reflect, study; read aloud”. And at 1962 of my Hong Kong dictionary we have: “To think of; to remember; to recall.” 85 = Chih85: “To govern, rule, ….keep in order”. But what does the “It(_Z)” refer to? …
Well, we were working on Neiye 13: Line A. It reads:
3A: “There-is a Numinous Self In (YU$cTuÜp)” the world. This “Self(Tu)”, like our soul. Can’t be comprehended or manipulated. Why? …
Our soul is on level A of Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)”. It is more abstract or “Subtle(Jo)” than thought (B). Level B is below A and the lower can’t comprehend or control the higher. BUT IT CAN OBEY the higher or not. If A, B, C and D all obey the higher then we have a democracy (A). If only C and D obey the higher but B doesn’t then we have a timocracy (B). When A (the people), B and D are all “Afraid(âl)” of C then we have a dictatorship (C). And if A, B, C and D are all ruled by those who are hooked on money then we have capitalism (D). I know this has to be explained better but here you have the whole thing in a nutshell.
. What point did I try to make by saying “….Üp)” the world. Instead of “…Üp)” us. As I did originally? …
If you hold on to this question, I am sure that James will answer it sooner or later if we just hang in there.
. Pg. 30:
. “Professional scientists are usually specialists trained in a specific discipline or groups of disciplines.” For instance semiotics is a group of disciplines. Its three components are: …
Semantics, syntactics and pragmatics. And each one of these is a complete field of specialization. So you could get your degree in any one of these four disciplines The quote continues: “…. disciplines. Nearly all of climate science is in the territory of atmospheric physics [So semantics (B), syntactics (C) and pragmatics (D) are in the territory of semiotics (B-C-D).]. These physicists sail huge climate models residing in powerful computers [residing in black boxes that nobody but the initiated understands], as large and unwieldy in many ways as the iron-clad battleships of past centuries. Fortunately the ships’ captains are brave meteorologists and have proven themselves at one of science’s sharp ends, weather forecasting. Few other scientists have their mistakes subject to so discerning and public a post-mortem as weather forecasters [here the pragmatic test (D) the actual whether which has been predicted. Here the test is for the “public” to conduct.]. You all know how impenetrable is the set of programs running your desk computer or laptop [The black boxes are intentionally “impenetrable”. Our political masters can reproduce the failed Y2K attempt at any time they are ready for it and, unlike the last time, this time nobody can fix it]. Just imagine what a general circulation climate model must be like if it needs a computer one thousand times more powerful than the on your desk.” …
. I have quoted the whole paragraph because when I quit the computer business in 1973 I could see the direction it would go “Intentionally(4P)”. James continues the subject and it should all be quoted. I just hope that you will get the book so that you can read it yourself. Let me just quote one sentence from the next paragraph: “The IPCC model fleet led by Admiral Pachauri sails forth on a wholly alien sea.”
. Pg. 31:
“Moreover the air normally, that is before we humans started changing it, was kept dynamically at a constant composition and one that sustained a habitable climate.”
. Same page:
“Proper science, which is the building of testable hypotheses, did not happen in this field until the twenties century when the recognition of links between life at the surface and in the ocean led the great but insufficiently recognized scientists … to research ….” Why were they “insufficiently recognized”? …
Why are “testable hypotheses” not tested? …
Social engineers have been around before hypotheses were tested, when they were tested and after they decided to stop testing them.
. Same page:
. “Geophysiology, the discipline of Gaia theory, had its origin in the 1960s Gaia hypothesis. Geophysiology sees the organisms of the earth evolving by Darwinian natural selection in an environment that is the product of their ancestors and not simply s consequence of Earth’s geological history. Thus ….” There is so much more good stuff to quote, but I have to limit myself to what will hopefully get you interested enough in this book.
. What can the words “Darwinian natural selection” automatically bring to mind? …
Intelligent design. I have not come across that idea in this book yet.
. Pg.32:
. “Because of this convenient and very human separation of Earth’s climate problem into provinces of separated specialities, hardly any scientist sees it as a whole topic …. It would not be so bad were there more general practitioners to interpret between them.”
. Semiotics is the more inclusive discipline without which semantics, syntactics and pragmatics would be unrelated to each other. Semiotics is the whole which emerges through its parts and, having emerged, gives meaning to them. The A-B-C-D tetrad is the whole of which demand (A) and supply (B-C-D) are the parts. And seeing it emerge through its parts by making and seeing it work, we can understand its parts.
. Because in the original IBM computer programming system and in semiotics we have such excellent models of what James is talking about, could that be the reason …
that the social engineers have made them “disappear”?
. If my suspicion is justified then we must consult Ching 41.1 to make use of their actions. Our political masters “Always Cause the People (Cn%en) to be
Without Knowledge (WUkn) and Without the Desire (WUYÜ)” to know. By them “Greatly Ridiculing (TA*41)” the “Truth(A1)”, we might learn something. “Great(TA) efforts to hide the truth, could be a mistake. Why …
Because we might notice it. Making semiotics “disappear”. by means of obscurantism is pretty obvious. Giving Derrida an honorary degree at Cambridge University is as bad as giving Bush an honorary degree at Toronto University but at Cambridge not only the students protested, but the staff as well. What are the social engineers telling us by being too obvious? …
They are saying: We don’t want you to know this. And what does that mean to us? …
That we have to study what they don’t want us to know.
. Having thought a bit more about “this convenient and very human separation of Earth’s climate problems into provinces of separate specialities,” I came up with another aspect of the problem, which may hold a solution of this problem. …
Semiotics is a prototype of this solution, which first directs our attention to the problem and then to its solution.
. On my old website: Web.ncf.ca/dr461 (which got lost, not because I didn’t send them a check but because it got lost) I have described the dialectic process. That came to mind automatically just now. It is the +-= triad. To produce the “outcome(=)” of the process you need the thesis – antithesis “DiAd(diad)”. We “Assist(1E)” the “TriAd(_3ad)” to emerge through the “DyAd(dyad)” by holding it in place. The Chinese poets do explain these things, but learning Chinese isn’t all we need to do to understand them.
. Ching 42.1 is Lao Tzu’s translation of an even older Lemurian symbol: The
“Tao Produces the One (A1Sg_1), One Produces Two (_1Sg_2), two Produces three (_2Sg_3) and the Three Produces All Things (_3SgWnwU).” This tells us that to understand “All physical Things” we don’t have to go beyond the tetrad. Systematics is the study of multy-term systems from one to twelve terms. The bad news is that our problem can’t be solved without systematics; the good news is that …
we only need systematics 101. Most lessons in the Tao Te Ching don’t go beyond the tetrad. This work would be much easier for me if a communicator (C) would take some of the load off my shoulders. When Lovelock’s book was dropped into my lap I knew that there was work for me in there, but this is almost too much. How can I do justice to a book like this? …
==============================================================================
November 19, 2010
. In my attempt to get you interested in James Lovelock’s book on Gaia we have reached page 21. Before we can move forward, however, I have to return to page 18 because I have found two omissions there:
. Thought (B) is the connective in the A-B-C triad. Lao Tzu and other poets (A) have “Identified(Mg)” this “TriAd(_3ad)” and “Named(Mg)” it Hsin(Hs).
. Communication (C) is the connective in the B-C-D triad. It is identified by the phrase “Heaven-Below(Tn_-)”. “Heaven(Tn)” corresponds to level B in Plato’s “Divided Line (See his Republic) and “Humanity(%5)” (C) and “Earth(TI)” (D) are “Below(_-)” it.
. Where A is the customer, who produces the demand, B-C-D produces the supply. This triad is also what semiotics is about.
. The A-B-C-D tetrad is within our human sphere of influence and responsibility. Since the A-B-C and the B-C-D triads are wholly within our sphere of influence, thought (B) and communication (C) are most characteristic of our human achievements. It is therefore no mistake for James to say that we are the “animal that can think and communicate”. The human animal is, however, also capable two other types of action. The most characteristic activity on level A is what the Buddha has called “Vision” and on level D it is physical action. All of this has been described in more detail in previous sections. So we can move on to
. Pg. 24:
“We deplore the clever manipulators who ‘trash and cash’ by short-selling a bank, but praise government who provide subsidies for the snake-oil remedies for climate ills and easy money for the firms that sell them.”
. Hey, I like this one. James comes close to saying that the social engineers are “snake-oil” salesmen because in a timocracy (B) the government’s decisions are based on social engineering.
. The text continues: “…. sell them
We still seem to think that by mid century we will enjoy a well-run and comfortable world under human management and stewardship.”
. 2300 years ago a Chinese Poet (A) said:
3I: “Relax your effort to reflect on and control it (*?*k85_Z J.Wu).” James seems to have rediscovered that truth.
. Page 25:
“In the 1960 we were wholly unaware that we inhabit a live planet whose needs are in conflict with our own. It is easy to ….That is why Kahn was so successful. His clear message was: carry on business as usual and all will be well --- just what we want to hear.”
. I have complained earlier that James is not explicit enough about the social engineers, but if we think about these words, he is very explicit. The social engineers don’t exactly tell us what we want to hear because, what we want to hear, may not be what they want us to believe (C). What they are telling us is what they have programmed us to expect, and they are “Repeating(@1)” it so that we believe it more firmly. Unless you become more aware of the fact that social engineering is a science, you will be unable to believe what they can do with it to our minds (C). And that’s why they don’t want you to know the things that make you aware of WHAT they are doing. That’s why they make them “disappear”.
. Same page:
. “ I am not a contrarian; instead I greatly respect the climate scientists of the IPCC and would prefer to accept as true their conclusions about future climates. …. But I cannot ignore the large difference that exist between their predictions and what is observed.” And now James explains in the next paragraph why people believe what they believe:
. “ In human affairs we know that ‘he who hesitates is lost’; social scientist [and social engineers] talk of ‘cognitive dissonance’, which the composer of the phrase, Leon Festinger, defined as the feeling of discomfort we feel when trying to hold two contradictory ideas simultaneously and the urge to reduce the dissonance by modifying or rejecting one of the ideas.
. “ It operates when we choose between two almost equal objects and, having chosen, invest our choice with superlative advantages over the alternative [especially when the social engineers help us with that] so that we can happily reject it. The decision process must be part of our genetic inheritance; [and social engineers must know how to make use of this inheritance. They know that] we need that certainty …. [even when it is a false certainty in the “official version” of their truth]. We have to choose and then have faith in our choice”.
. This line of thought brings us to the question of freedom and determinism. Which one of the two do we tend to reject? …
When we become aware that freedom involves responsibility, we tend to reject freedom. My own knowledge of freedom comes from Steiner’s PHILOSOPHY of FREEDOM. But not all of it. There is, for instance, Hegelian dialectics. It works when both thesis and antithesis are held in suspense in spite of the “cognitive dissonance” resulting from that. Only when the opposites are seen as two equally valid poles of a polarity can the synthesis emerge through its parts.
. The “Two Produces the Three (_2Sg_3)”. The “DyAd(_2ad) Produces the “TriAd(_3ad)”. By dumbing us down, the social engineers deprive us of a “Means for Finding-out the Truth (YIdoA1)”.
. Same page:
“However, scientists are human and we never entirely escape the pull of cognitive dissonance” especially when social engineers know how to cause us to reject the choice they want us to reject.
. Same page:
. “ The range of forecasts by the different models of the IPCC is so large that it is difficult to believe that they are reliable enough to be used by governments to plan policy for ameliorating climate change.” What “is difficult to believe” is made easy to believe by professional social engineers. I said before that: Unless we know WHAT social engineers can do, we will find it “difficult to believe”. I said that before I came to this passage.
. The next quote starts at the bottom of this page but ends on
Pg. 26:
“The main reason for doubt is the fact that the forecasts do not agree with high-quality evidence from the Earth obtained by scientists whose job it is to measure and observe.”
. Measurement and observation is performed in the pragmatic dimension (D) of semiotics. When the outcome of the B-C-D triad is made to “disappear” you have to rely on “models” which produce different forecasts. So not only do different “models” give different “official versions” of forecasts but there is an even greater discrepancy between the “official versions” of the truth and the truth.
. On page 27 there is a graph which shows the “official” forecast of sea level change and the measured graph from 1971 to 2005. The difference is already undeniable.
. Pg. 27:
. “ Sea level rise is the best available measure of the heat absorbed by the Earth because it comes from only two main causes: the melting of glaciers on land and the expansion of the ocean as it warms --- in other words, sea level is a thermometer which indicates the true global warming.”
. Pg. 28: The
“summer Arctic Ocean will be almost ice-free within fifteen years [That was said at least one year ago]. The IPCC prediction suggests that this is unlikely to happen before 2050.”
. This doesn’t mean that half of the floating ice we have now will be gone in seven years because:
. Pg. 29:
“White, snow-covered ice reflects 80 per cent of the sunlight back to space but dark sea water reflects only 20 per cent of the sunlight that strikes it.” But the gap between the “official versions” of the truth and the truth will get progressively wider as less sunlight is reflected “back to space”. I am very curious about HOW the social engineers are going to make this ever widening gap “disappear”. The alternative to denying the truth has been seen here in Toronto at the G/20 protest march. Put yourself into the shoes of our political masters: …
If the truth can no longer be denied, timocracy (B) is no longer possible. Which one of the other three types of government is their only alternative? ...
I was 9 at the end of the second world-war in Germany. I have seen it and I can’t forget some of it.
. Same page:
. “ If we are failing to predict what has already happened how can we have confidence in predictions for forty or ninety years from now? ….
. “ In addition to the discrepancies between modelling and observation, Gaia theory predicts a different course of climate change consequent on carbon dioxide pollution. This theory is acknowledged, but not yet used in practice ….”
. How can we trust models that don’t include acknowledged variables? …
I may be wrong, but my guess is social engineering.
==============================================================
November 18, 2010
. In the last November 16 section, I got as far as page 14 of Lovelock’s book. Let us continue with page 15: “…. Earth scientists, the majority still shy away from the difficult concept of a live Earth. Our proper responses …. Require that science embraces this concept and abandons the sterile idea of mainstream Earth and life science.”
. The “sterile idea” is what I have here called the “official version” of the truth. Since this version is disseminated by professional social engineers, it is as widely believed as it is. While the observable facts are communicated (C) better than I can, what I find lacking in Lovelock’s book is a more explicit description of social engineering. As long as it is not understood, what is accomplished by means of it, will remain to be unbelievable.
. In order to be motivated to find out what social science, political science, philosophy, semiotics, the original IBM computer programming system and, as I find out now, also the Earth sciences really are, we must know why in a timocracy (see Plato’s Republic) these subjects can't be taught properly. This book is significant to me because here we have a scientist clearly explaining what Gaia really is and that knowledge is falsifying the “official versions” about it.
. I am not a scientist, but if I can get you interested enough in this book that you will get it, study it, discuss it and recommend, or, if you can afford it, give, it to others then my efforts will have been successful.
. Pg. 16:
“…. At Bali, political leaders agreed to cut all carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. What on Earth made them think that they could make policy for a world over 40 years ahead?” …
They don’t care about the observable facts; they only care about making us believe their “official version” of the truth. And they can make the majority of non-thinking world citizens believe it as long as they can keep them dumbed down “Enouh(Zu)”.
. Pg. 18:
“…. We are the intelligent elite among animal life on Earth and, whatever our mistakes, Gaia needs us.
. “ This may seem an odd statement after all that I have said about the way twentieth-century humans became almost a planetary disease organism [Bed-bugs automatically come to mind here.]. But it has taken Gaya 3.5 billion years to evolve an animal that can think and communicate its thoughts. If we become extinct she has little chance of evolving another. I will enlarge this thought later in the book.”
. Pg. 20:
“… To survive in this new world we need a Gaia philosophy, and to prepare ourselves to fight a barbarian warlord out to seize us and our territory.”
. There is a lot I have to skip in this book. I have quoted this one, because I can add something not based on abstract reasoning but from personal experience, for a change:
. I have studied under J.G Bennett in an experimental intentional community in England. After returning to Canada, I was looking for such a community here. I have spent two years 14 miles south of Bancroft alone as the lone resident of a potential community. The money and the land is important, of course, to start such an undertaking. We had very good people coming out on weekends. But it was the unwillingness of a few members to work on themselves which caused that hopeful project to fail. So what thought would automatically come to my mind after reading the above quote? …
What good is it to put all your time, energy and money into establishing a sustainable community, when …
“a barbarian warlord” can just come and take it? …
There are different ways to prepare for what is coming. People can join the right people to establish a sustainable community together, or people can …
join a ruthless warlord and prepare for taking it away from them. The latter will have the better chance of survival, unless the former is prepared “to fight a barbarian warlord”. Passages like this tell me that James has thought of everything.
. Same page:
“…. Our gravest dangers are not from climate change itself, but indirectly from starvation, competition for space and resources, and tribal war.”
. This problem of finding the right people to join has not been addressed so far.
.
pg. 21: We
“humans are vitally important as a part of Gaia, not through what we are now but through our potential”. The first two characters of the Tao Te Ching came to mind automatically. Please study them to see why they were associated with what I have just quoted here. …
Actualize your Potential (A1pt)”! How? …
By “Taoing the TaoAble (A1ptA1).” The quote continues: “…. potential as a species to be the progenitor of a much better animal.” Now put yourself into the shoes of Gaia. What would you do to motivate us to become “a much better animal”? …
And you can’t cause people to want to become better if you don’t also give them the opportunity to become a worse animal. We cannot have the freedom of choice if we are not given a choice. We must “Intentionally(4P)”, by “Repetition(@1)”, develop a kind of magnet in us that will attract us to good people and good people to us. The quote continues: “…. animal. Like it or not we are now its heart and mind, but to continue to improve in this role we have to ensure our survival our survival as civilized species and not revert into a cluster of warring tribes that was a stage in our evolutionary history.”
. So we have the choice to go forward in our evolution or to revert to where we came from by joining a “warlord”. James seems to have thought of everything.
. Same paragraph:
“If we can keep civilization alive through this century perhaps there is a chance that our descendants will one day serve Gaia and assist her in the fine-tuned self-regulation of the climate and composition of our planet.” The quote from ANGELS & DEMONS, that got this whole thing going, comes to mind:
. “The planet is an organism. All of us are cells with different purposes. And yet are intertwined. Serving each other. [and by so doing we are] Serving the whole.”
. By doing our dharma we are serving Gaia. The word “assist” automatically brought a passage I have quoted from the Neiye to mind. Can you find it? …
1E: “Align your Body to Assist Tê (%8@k*aTÊ).” *a = She64: “To assist ….”.
. We can think of ourselves as having four bodily “Forms(@k”: …
We have a spiritual body (A) or a divine spark in us. This is the Atman in Sanskrit. We have a causal body (B). This is Buddhi. We have an astral body (C). This is the mind or manas. And we have an etheric body (D).
. There is a problem here that needs to be clarified: This problem goes back to Aristotle. Let me start on top. The Aristotelian “final cause” is level A on Plato’s “Divided Line (at 509d of his divided line). J.G. Bennett calls it the GOAL. This is the “job-description” in computer programming. I have described this before, so I will be brief. The Atman (A) is called the “Door, Dasamadwara” in Sanskrit. It is the door between the spirit or purusha and buddhi (B). By analogy, B is the door, or the connective between A and C, C is the connective in the B-C-D triad and D (E7) is the connective between C (E6) and E8. This is a very general description, but you have now “Enough(Zu)” to apply it to the 4-fold construction business or to the 4-fold original IBM computer programming system.
. Customer (A), programmer (B), coder (C) and computer (D) are all connectives in their triads. This can be seen best on the most concrete of the four levels in which our etheric body (D) is the connective. The etheric body (E7) is what holds our physical body (E8) together. And because our physical body (E8) is the most concrete “impulse” of the E6_
E7-E8 triad our physical body is visible and tangible to us and what we accomplish with it is tangible as well.
. Let me sum this up by using semiotics” Thought (B) is operating with Sensitive Energy (E5) in the semantic dimension (B) of semiotics. Its function is to connect A to C. Word, or communication, (C) is operating with Automatic Energy (E6) in the syntactic dimension (C). Its function is to connect B to D. Deed, or our etheric body, (D) is operating in the pragmatic dimension. Its function is to connect E6 (C) to E8. How? …
By executing the instructions it gets from C.
. Let me hasten to tell you that this is theory (B) only. But if you have no theory then you have no theory to test. The only way a theory can be verified or falsified is in the pragmatic dimension, which is the only place where it can be tested in practice (D). That is why in pragmatism the definition of truth is: If it works then it is true, and if it is true then it will work. That is the philosophy science is based on. Any one who wants to cause the pragmatic dimension of semiotics to “disappear”, must make semiotics disappear and anyone who does that has something to hide.
. I have read as far ahead as page 29. I tried to catch up, but as you can see, some quotes are very suggestive. Almost like the amazing poetry we would have been working on if somebody didn’t drop the book on Gaia into my lap. Ideally, you get that book, study it, discuss it and recommend, or, if you ca afford it, give, it to others. If you have the book then you can read ahead to page 29 and try to predict what of it I will quote and what I will say about these quotes. Good exercise. …
=========================================================
November 16, 2010
. In the last section I quoted from Ching 29: “The-World (Tn_-) is a Sacred Vessel ($cut) which is ImPossible(PUpt) To(do)” …
. I then asked you: Which idea, I have mentioned in this Month, comes “automatically” to your mind as a result of reading Lao Tzu’s words. …
. There is an omission in yesterday’s section: I didn’t tell you which statement by James Lovelock brought the above quote to my mind. It is on the same page 6 the previous quote comes from but I failed to quote it. Here it is: “….any changes we make to it [mother earth] are at our own risk.” Lao Tzu couldn’t have said it any better but he purposely left out the answer for us to figure out. It took us 2300 years to find out the answer. What is it? …
“The world is a sacred vessel which is impossible to” change without the “risk” involved in tampering with it without understanding it well “Enough(Zu)”.
. And now, having said that, another passage from Ching 71 comes to mind:
71.1: “Knowing that you Don’t Know (knPUkn)
. . . . the thing you are going to change is Healthy(_+)”
71.2: “Not Kowing it, that you don’t Know (PUknkn) it, is Sick(@p).” On page 6, Lovelock said that “the consequences [of “IgNorance(PUkn)”, or arrogance] could be disastrous.” Different words (C), same idea (B).
. Some more lines from the Neiye come to my mind automatically as well: …
Please go over the November 9 section (again, if you have already read it) to find out what comes to your mind “automatically”. …
If nothing “Comes up Without you Doing (doWUdo)” it “Intentionally(4P)” then do it intentionally: …
2A: This “Numinous self, Nobody Knows its Limit ($cMOkn%l).”
. . . To assume that you “Know(kn)”, when you don’t, can be disastrous.
3H: “Give-up the Thought of Conceiving it It (^a*d8i_Z)” intellectually!
3I: “Relax your efforts to Figure-it-out or Control It *?*h8i_Z)”!
. *d = Hsiang61: “To think, meditate …. To call to mind”. For *? Roth’s equivalent is good enough. Saves me time and energy looking it up. *h should be *k, which = Nien61. and 8i should be 85. These mistakes tell me to pay more attention to this line. I have read Nien61 as Yi61, which semantically (B) isn’t a bad mistake, but good enough to draw attention to 4P. 4P = I or Yi61: “Thought, will, intention”: The
“Hsin'S Hsin (Hs_ZHs) is an Intention that Precedes Words (4P^7C2).”
. “Thought(4P)” (B) “Precedes Words” (C). And what precedes thought? …
There is just too much work for me. Establishing democracy (A) is not a one man job. We need more men and women to work on this project. It is, in fact, very encouraging to me that scientists, like James Lovelock, have been working on it for a long time. Even though the task still seems insurmountable, I know now that much of this feeling of hopelessness, this victim state of consciousness, is produced “Intentionally(4P)” by the social engineers.
. Knowing that other scientists, like Ervin Laszlo, are also pulling in the same direction gives me the confidence that the hold our political masters have on our minds (C) will sooner or later have to give.
. I only got to page 14 of Lovelock’s book. There is just too much to quote. I will restrict myself to quotes that are related to what I am doing here in this blog and hopefully get the book and study and discuss it. It is not just a coincidence that this book ended up in my hands; it is a “meaningful coincidence”.
. Pg. 6: “The Earth …. Any changes we make to it are at our own risk.” We have looked at this one already but it is worth repeating.
. Pg 7: “Through Gaia theory I offer a view of our and the Earth’s possible future as climate change develops. It differs from that of most climate scientists. The differences come from procedure, not from a different factual basis.”
. As “climate change develops” the motivation behind making 1/3 of the scientific process “disappear” will become apparent. And then the motives behind other “disappearances” must, logically (B) and automatically (C) come to light as well.
. Level C is the connective between theory (B) and practice (D). We must not “Underestimate($j)” the power of those who make the decisions at level C. All three dimensions of semiotics are equally important. Cause one part of it to “disappear” and you cause the the whole system to disappear. We learn that from semiotics. Semiotics is as simple as arithmetic. What I have just said is as obvious as 3-1=2. If you subtract one from three then you no longer have three. Delete the pragmatic dimension from semiotics and you no longer have semiotics.
. Same page: “Do not suppose that conventional wisdom among scientists is similar to consensus among politicians or lawyers. Science is about the truth and should be indifferent to fairness or political expediency.”
. The word “fairness” should be in quotes because it is used as an excuse to “justify” or “explain away” political (C) and economic (D) expediency. For instance: We didn’t need an excuse to invade Iraq to get its oil; we simply had to bring democracy to a brutal dictatorship. And again, “democracy” should be in quotes.
. Pg. 8:
“…. If this is what the UN means by consensus, scientific truth cannot be expected to come from its deliberations and we are mislead about the danger of global heating. This may also be why national governments and international agencies are reluctant to fund observation and measurement but ready to fund models.”
. From this you can see how powerful the decision-makers, who can connect B to D or not, are. While the test equipment and the specialist, and even the money to pay them belongs to the economic sphere, or the pragmatic dimension of semiotics, (D), the decision to use the equipment or not comes from the political sphere, or the syntactic dimension, (C). As you can see, things are getting a bit complicated. That’s HOW our political masters like it.
. If a communicator (C) will explain, WHAT I have just said above a bit better, then you will see that these things are complexified “Intentionally(4P)”.Our political masters have good reasons for not letting us know the truth. …
. The word “models” brought another idea to my mind, automatically, and it came to me as a bit of a surprise. Ervin Laszlo’s “computer simulations” are …
“models”. He even talks about the “modellers”, who are programmers (B) and coders (C) working as a team.
. Pg. 10:
“Australia has already suffered eleven years of continuous draught; Europeans will recall the awful summer of 2003; and in China, Africa and southern Asia famine is a familiar enemy. Like the foot of an elephant on an anthill, global heating will crush the life from the continental planes.” But you no worry, these are only the mindless rantings of a stupid “fear-mongers”, who are mistaking “small-scale experiments” for big-scale reality. But what are they going to say when the foot comes down? …
. Pg.14:
“…. Most American scientists …. See…. The Earth as something that they could improve or manage”. To put that idea into student’s heads, takes some doing but, as we can see, it can be done. All you have to convince your students of, is that there is no creator, that this whole thing just came together purely by chance. And if you believe something else then you don’t make the grade.
. Same paragraph: Scientists
“do not yet see the Earth as a live planet that regulates itself”, “ItSelf(TuJa)”. According to them, Lao Tzu is stupid.
. Same page:
“Almost too late, leading scientists worldwide are realizing that real observations and measurements falsify the twentieth-century view of the Earth as a passive resource.” Just as the truth falsifies the “official version” of the truth.
. Okay, this is as far as I got today.
===============================================================
November 15, 2010
. The quote I have given in yesterday’s section, below this one, ends with “…. Confirmation by experiment and observation plays just as important a part.” The fact that scientists have to be reminded of this is an indication that something has gone seriously wrong.
. Purely by coincidence, I run into a person who was well informed about Gaia. The question is: Informed by whom? …
. If they are informed by those who are in control of our educational system and who own the mass media then they will actually work for the social engineers while believing that they are doing a good thing. The person I run into was educated and informed by social scientists. Since I just got Lovelock’s book, I naturally wanted to tell her about it. But there was nothing I could tell her which she didn’t already know. She then proceeded to give me a crash course in “small-scale experiments” and then informed me that the mistake the believers in Gaia are making is to apply the results of small-scale scientific experiments to large scale reality. “There is plenty of food for everybody” she said and people who say otherwise, which by then included me as well, are nothing but “fear mongers”. A professional social engineer couldn’t have done better than she did and she doesn’t even get paid for what she is doing for them. All the social engineers had to do is to program her. Social engineers cause people to replace thinking (B), which requires Sensitive Energy (E5), by computation (C), which runs on Automatic Energy (E6).
. This otherwise well informed and well intentioned person was actually teaching the “official version” of the truth, parts of which I was already familiar with. There are “official versions” about just about any subject. The facts about 9/11 are undeniable, yet the Official version” of what happened on 9/11 blatantly denies them. How can our political masters get away with such obvious lies? …
Let us not overlook the fact that social engineering is a science. And a very ancient one.. Even though by means of modern science and psychology it has been improved upon, its underlying basis has been described already by Lao Tzu.
. By the time I was subjected to the “official version” of Gaia, I had already read beyond of what I have quoted in yesterday’s section. Let me continue the quote: “…. part. Perhaps for social reasons, science has in recent years changed its way of working. Observation in the real world and small-scale experiments on earth now take second place to expensive and ever-expanding theoretical models. It may be administratively and politically convenient to work that way but the consequences could be disastrous.”
. So, as this nice woman was subjecting me to the official doctrine, I already knew that “Observation in the real world” is different from “small-scale experiments on earth”. Let me continue the quote to let you know what I already knew when that nice woman tried to change my mind about that:
“…. disastrous. Our tank is empty of data and we are running on theoretical vapour: this is especially true of data about the oceans that make up over 70 per cent of the Earth surface, and about the responses of ecosystems to climate change --- and, just as importantly, the effect of change in the oceans and ecosystems on the climate.”
. Clearly Lovelock is not just talking about “small-scale experiments”. And knowing that prevented her from changing my mind, but could I get any of this across to her? …
Why not? …
This is an important question. …
Let us not “Underestimate the social engineering skills of our Enemy ($jâb).” Ti(äb) is only in chapters 68 and 69 of Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching.
. The lady who was unknowingly working for our political masters lives in the same senior apartment complex I live in. I know her to be well intentioned and sincere, but there was nothing of what I knew to be true that I could get across to her. She is not the first example of the result of social engineering and it is frightening because she is a good person.
. The timing in which that book on Gaia got into my hands was just perfect. Had it not come in time I might have believed her, that “small-scale experiments” are not big-scale reality without investigating any further. What we programme into a computer first takes precedence over what comes later. What comes first can tell the computer to ignore what comes later. The way this nice lady ignored anything I said in response to her assertions, can only be explained by this computer analogy. Why did our political masters cause the original IBM computer programming system and semiotics, the supply part of the system as a whole, to “disappear”? …
. I shall not answer that one, but I have another question for you: What idea, I have described during this month, that is directly related to the quotes I have given about Gaia? …
If an idea has struck you as true then it will be still fresh “Enough(Zu)” in your memory (C) to come to mind (C) automatically. …
Such ideas may not be exactly what Rudolf Steiner has called representations (Vorstellung) but what is fresh in our memory acts like a representation. …
Please go over the November 9 section to see what I mean. …
Representations cause us to compute (C) automatically, with Automatic Energy (E6) which otherwise we must do “Intentionally(3H)” with Sensitive Energy (E5) or Conscious Energy (E4). The question was: Which idea I have mentioned during the Month of November which will automatically be associated with the quote about Gaia? …
When association happens as a result of “Intentionally” looking for correspondences, it is thought (B); when associations happen to us automatically, when we “Do it Without doing (doWUdo)” it with our intellect (B) or Self (A) then it is …
Computation. …
. The three dots at the end of a line mean: Please think (B) before reading on. …
In the November 9 section I have quoted a passage in which Shên($c) appears:
29: “The-World(Tn_-) is a Sacret Vessel ($cut), which is ImPossible(PUpt)
. . To Yeh (doYe).” My comment on this was as follows: (Yeh is a final particle. It is like my three dots” at the end of the line. …
===========================================================
November 14, 2010
“Gaea
. . . The planet is an organism. All of us are cells with different purposes.
. . . And yet are intertwined. Serving each other. Serving the whole.”
This quote from ANGELS & DEMONS is in my blog and on one of my flyers. Somebody who has been following what I have been doing here took the trouble to get me “The Vanishing Face of GAIA” by James Lovelock. That was not only a nice gift but also a very thoughtful one: Just listen to this quote from page 5: “We seem to have forgotten that science is not wholly based on theory and models: more tiresome and prosaic confirmation by experimentation and observation plays just as important a part.”
. We have here another thing that is made to “disappear”. The dyad in the scientific process is theory – practice. How can our political masters get rid of “confirmation by experimentation”? …
The same way they got rid of semiotics. They have done it by hiring and promoting the obscurantist Derrida. And obscurantism is only a small part of social engineering. Social engineering is a science. Let’s not forget that.
. Science is the B-C-D “TriAd(_3ad)”.The initiating impulse is the theory (B). This is the scientific hypothesis. In computer programming it is the algorithm. All of this is accomplished by thinking. Thinking (B) takes place in the semantic dimension of semiotics.
. The B-C-D triad can be best understood as thought, word and deed. So next comes the syntactic dimension (C). This is the connective in the triad, it connects theory to practice. Rudolf Steiner’s political sphere is on level C. This is why the decision to link theory to practice is not necessarily a pragmatic one.
. The outcome of the three-fold process is produced in the pragmatic dimension (D) of semiotics.
. If the decision-makers on level C don’t connect theory to practice then we don’t have the outcome on level D. And without an outcome, we don’t have the scientific process. If this brief summary of the scientific process is too abstract for you, please get the book. John Lovelock has described it better. When he has to remind his scientific colleges of what science is then something has seriously gone wrong.
. If you get the book, you will see that it is right up my alley. I will now continue with Neiye 13.
13.A: “There-is a Numinous Self In (YU$cTuÜp)” us.
. In the November 11 section we got as far as looking at all of the chapters of the Ching in which “Self(Tu)” appears. What remains to be done, to get done with that sentence, is to look at all the passages in which this character appears in the Neiye. If I didn’t miss any, they are in: 3, 11, 13, 15, 20, 25 and 26.
3a: “All of Hsin’S Forms (1aHs_Z@k)”, (or of Hsin’S three Bodies.), are
3b: “Naturally Infused, Naturally Filled (Tu*?Tu^4),”
3c: “Naturally Produced and Naturally Completed (TuSgTucm).”
3j: “Do-not Disturb, Do-not Interfere (3j*?3j$a)” with the proper working of Hsin
3k: and “Harmony Will Naturally Develop (HoSpTucm).”
1E: “Align your Body (%8@k to Assist Tê (*aTÊ).”
. . . If “Heaven Humanity and Earth (Tn%5TI) are Properly-aligned Then (Üw18)”
1F: “Gradually(1F), “And(bt)” by ItSelf (JabtTu), it will Come(äz).
. We have already done 13.
5A: “Vital-essence Preserved (#S$4) Naturally Produced (TuSg).”
. . . . . “Eating(*?)” and “Thinking(8i)”
0L: “Limit these to the appropriate degree
0M: And you will naturally[Tu] reach it [vitality] (Roth. Square brackets are his).”
=I: If you “Do-not Push (3j*?) it and Do-not Pull(3j*?)” it then
=J: Good fortune will naturally[Tu] return to you (Roth).”
-G: If “(Hsin is Able To-hold-on-to Tranquility (Hsab32^a)” then
-H: the “Tao Will By-itself Fix (A141Tu8b)” itself. What do these two lines mean? …
If our soul (A) is “Aligned” to the Creative Energy (E3), which is above our human sphere of influence, and our intellect (B) “Aligns” itself with A, and our mind (C) aligns itself with B and our body (D) aligns itself with C then …
You can read it yourself.
8a: If you are “Able to Align yourself to the level above your own then
. . you will be “Able to be Tranquil (ab^a).” And
8b: “Only Then will the tao within you be Able to do the Fixing (Ja4Rab8b).”
. What do these two lines mean? …
I have already interpreted part of it. …
If we do our part then the Tao will do its part. If you work on this amazing poetry then this amazing poetry will work on you. I cannot do the work for you, I can only save you some time. And, as James Lovelock and others, who do not engage in wishful thinking, are telling us, we are running out of time. I am only on page five of his book. I will do some more reading.
===============================================
November 11, 2010
. In the November 4 section, I said that understanding “line H of chapter 13” of the Neiye “better will help you understand the paragraph, the sentence is in, better.” That got me going on Neiye 13 in the November 9 section. But, already while doing the handwritten draft, I realized that “I have tried to bite off than I can chew.” However, if I have bitten off more than I can chew in one section, that shouldn’t prevent me from continuing to chew on it:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nei Ye 13
3A: “There-is a Numinous Self In (YU$cTuÜp)” us.
. Yu(YU) can mean, “Existence”, “Something”, “With” or “There-is”. It is the opposite of Wu(WU) which can mean, “Non-existence”, “Nothing”, “Without” or “There-is-not”. At 3A Yu(YU) can mean “Something” or “There-is”, depending on HOW you decide to translate the sentence as a whole.
. The whole emerges through its parts and, having emerged, gives meaning to it. Tsai(Üp) means “In” or “within” as Roth has it here. Most characters in the Ching and the Neiye have valid English equivalents. “Something” means something, “Nothing” means nothing, “In” means in etc. The characters we have to pay attention to are those which have no straightforward English equivalents. In the November 9 section we have done that with Shên($c) but we still have to do it with Tzu(Tu).
. Star gives us: “I, my, self, themselves, himself// naturally, spontaneously, of itself, of its own accord// from, since.” These are examples of how different translators have translated this character in different contexts. The concordance is also in Star’s (Not Starts) “excellent work”. For Tzu(Tu) it is: 07 09 17 21-25 32-34 37 39 51 57 64 72 73. Doing work a “WordEr(C2er)” can do better, or which you can do yourself, is not my dharma. I’ll just pick a few of them to give you some examples:
Ching 07: “Heaven and Earth (TnTI) …. Don’t “Live(Sg)” for themSelves (PUTuSg).” 09: “Set store by your riches and honour,
. . . And you [your Self(Tu)] will only reap a crop of calamities (J.Wu).”
. I was only going to quote a few of the passages with Tzu(Tu) in it, but some translations are so good that it doesn’t feel right to deprive you of it because typing isn’t my dharma. Besides, “Repetitions(@1)” will “Step-down(8b)” abstract ideas (B) to more concrete representations (C). So if you make use of these repetitions, you will benefit from it. Why? ...
Because we are working on the best.
17: And the people will say: “We, ourselves have accomplished it (J.Wu).” Whenever you see “selves” in his translation you probably have Tzu(Tu) in the original.
. At 21 Tzu(Tu) is used like the pronoun “It” and at 22 it is used for “He (J.Wu)”, the “Wise Man (wsmn)”. Wing has the plural “They” for the “Evolved Individuals (wsmn)”.
23: “Only simple and quiet (^e J.Wu) Words(C2) will ripen of (J.Wu)
. . ThemSelves(TuJa).” You can see here how one of my two favourite translators has translated these four characters. This example shows that what you get is often more than what is there in the original. And John C. H. Wu is very good at it. He must be using intuition because he has made mistakes Wing didn't make. In General, R. L. Wing is more accurate, but not always. For instance here we get: “Nature rarely speaks.” for the same four characters.
24: “…. Self(Tu) ShowErs (ooerTu) do Not(PU) “See-clearly(72).
. . Self(Tu) JustifiErs(Sier) are Not Justified-by-that (PU#d).” There are four more examples like that. And the conclusion is: “Therefore(KU) “Those-who Have the Tao (erYUA1)(YUA1er) turn away (PUCh Wing)” from such actions.
25: The “Tao Follows ItSelf (A1ähTuJa).”
32: “And people would naturally[Tu] cooperate without commands (Wing).”
33: “Those who know others are intelligent (knmner^c Wing).
. . Self KnowErs (Tukner) have Insiht(72).”
34: “In the end it[Tu] does not seek greatness,
. . And in that way the great is achieved (Wing).”
37: “All Things Will-be Naturally Influenced (WnwU41Tuäo Wing).”
. . Very often I can use Wing’s translation and capitalize the words as in my own word for word translation. In Wing’s translation, there are as much or more English equivalents in the same order as the Chinese Characters are in the original. One reason is that Wing is accurate, the other is …
that Lao Tzu uses a very English like syntax. First comes the subject, then the connective (if any) and then the predicate.
39: “This is why (SiYI) leaders(_E) call themselves[Tu] ….(Wing)”
. Here I noticed something interesting: Wing has translated Shên($c) as “Mind”. See how we lean? You just work on this amazing Chinese poetry and it works on you. The lessons are coming up all by “ThemSelves(TuJa)”. J.Wu has “the spirits” for Shên in this same context. But for 3A, Roth has: “There is a numinous [mind] naturally residing within (YU$cTuÜp)”. “[mind]” was inserted by him. To learn their lessons students must pay attention.
51: “…. But they Always do so Spontaneously (btCnTuJa)”. Here we have J.Wu. All I have done is capitalize the four equivalents to let you know what is there in the original.
57: “I do not engage myself in anything, and the people [by themselves(Tu)] grow rich.
. I have no desires, and the people [by themSelves(Tu)] return to Simplicity J.Wu).”
64: A “Wise Men (wsmn) …. Does not venture to lead them [his students] by the nose[Tu] (J.Wu).” Here is what we get from the ANALYSIS OF CHINESE CHARACTERS: ”TZU, a picture of the nose …. The nose being the projecting part and in a way the characteristic of the person”. And now you know where J.Wu’s clever translation of this character in this context comes from.
72: “Therefore, the sage knows himself, But makes no show of himself;
. . Loves himself, But does not exalt himself.” We have four “Selves(Tu)” here.
73: “…. To induce the people to come [by themselves(Tu)] without summoning, (J.Wu)”.
. Well, we have looked at all of the passages in which Tzu(Tu) appears in the Ching. We still have to do all the passages in which the character appears. At least we have to look at the passages I have found in my provisional concordance.
. We are not finished with the first line and there are 15 more to go. But this work is harder on me than it is on a “WordEr(C2er)” and she would do a better job. I will not even bother to correct the minor mistakes I have made in the November 9 section. I will have to quit now. There is no point forcing it beyond a certain point because the mistakes will just increase automatically.
===========================================================
November 9, 2010
. In the November 4 section I have quoted “line H of chapter 13” and I said “If you have worked on the Neiye before, you will notice that understanding this sentence better will help you to understand the paragraph, the sentence is in, better.”
. That was a daring thing to say because Roth hasn’t broken down the chapter into paragraphs. To do it myself has committed me to a lot of syntactic (C) work, which is not my dharma. Even, after having done a lot of work on it, I have tried to bite off more than I can chew. I don’t want to waste all of this work, so I will put it out. I have to say again that my theory still has to be tested by those who are more qualified to do it than I am.
. There are 16 lines in chapter 13. Only line L is five characters long. All other lines are four characters long. This tells me that the last paragraph starts there.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Neiye 13
3A: There is “Something Numinous Naturally In (YU$cTuÜp)” us.
. . Alt. “There-is a Numnous Self In” us.
3B: One Goes out; One Comes in (_14h_1äz).”
. . Alt. “As soon as it goes out something else comes in.”
3C: And “Nobody is Able to Conceive “It(_Z)” (MO_Zab8i)” intellectually.
3D: “Lose It and Inevitably you are Disordered (37_ZPI$a).”
3E: “Get It and Inevitably you are in Order (gt_ZPI85).”
. 3C is related to 3H, which got me into this. If you don’t break down the chapter into paragraphs, the whole chapter is a paragraph and 3H applies to 3C. The message is: …
Don’t bother trying to understand this “Numinous” something because it is above your head (B). So it would have to be “In” our soul (A). Notice the kind of detective-work we have to do. But we can also do some computation (C) which communicators can do more efficiently than I can with Automatic Energy (E6). But. if they don’t do it then I have to do it with Sensitive Energy (E6). That’s the wrong fuel for this kind of work. But if “WordErs Don’t Know (C2erPUkn)” what their dharma is, then I have to do their work. Without “WordErs(C2er)” doing the syntactic (C) work, “KowErs(kner”can't do their job. You can see from this example how each of our four “Centers(_=)” is unique but each center, vision (A), thought (B), word (C) and deed (D) depends on the other three.
. Each part of us, or class of society is autonomous and interdependent. I now have to do work that can be done better and more efficiently by a “WordEr” (C).
. Shên($c) is in Ching 06, 29, 39 and 60.
06: The “Walley Spirit is ImMortal (kU$cPU78).”
29: ”The-World(Tn_-) is a Sacred Vessel ($cut), which is ImPossible(PUpt)
. . To Yeh (doYe).” Yeh is a final particle. It is like my three dots.
39: The “Spirits Attain harmony with the One ($cgt_1) and
. . By that become Divine (YI*a).” *a = Ling173. Only in this chapter.
60: “When a man of Tao reigns over the world, demons[1f] have no spiritual[$c] powers. Not that the demons have no spiritual powers, but the spirits do no harm to men, but the Sage [Intelligent People (wsmn)] himself does no harm to the people (J.Wu).”
. It is easy to get the phonetic and radical numbers from Starts excellent work but to understand passages on which translators can’t agree is not as easy. This is a tough one, as can be seen from the different translations we get for it. This always means that Lao Tzu has given some work to his students. I think that our teacher is hinting here at the “Intelligent Men (wsmn)” in chapters 3 and 5.
. Now, what can the Neiye tell us about Shên(($c)? If I have made no mistakes, it is in chapters 01, 12, 13 and 19.
1e: Flowing “Between(@i)” Heaven and Earth (*aTnTI@i)”
1f: Call It Ghostly or Numinous (is_Z1f$c).”
. . *a = Liu85. 1f = Kuei194. Also in Ching 60.
2A: This “Numinous self, Nobody Knows its Limit (ScMOkn%l).”
. . For 13, 3A, see above.
9A: “Concentrate on your Ch’i As-if it is Numinous (*a#EJU$c).”
. The next three paragraphs can be read as If …. Then statements. Roth has imperative sentences instead. Both translations are valid. I merely give you an alternative reading of it. We are now ready to continue with Neiye 13:
3F: If you “Dilligently Clear-out Its Lodging-place (*a*b_H*c)” then its
3G: “Vital-essence Will Naturally Come (#S41Tuäz)”
. . Alt: “…. Come by it Self.”. As I said before, if a character has more than one valid equivalent we either must leave it un-translated or give the alternative readings.
3H: If you “Give-up the Thought of Conceiving It (^a*d8i_Z) with your intellect,
3I: Relax your efforts to Figure-it-out or to Control It (*?*h8i_Z),
3J: are “reverent and diligent (*e$m%y*a Roth) then its
3K: Vital-essence Will Naturally be Fixed ($S41Tu8b)” or “...Fix it Self.”
3L: If you “Grasp It And Don’t Let-go (gt_Z bt2k*g)” then your
3M Ears and Eyes Won’t Overflow (*h*iPU*?), your
3N: Hsin will have Nothing (HsWU) else to seek (*?*? Roth), an
3O: Aligned Hsin will be In your Centers (%8HsÜp_=) and
3P: All Things (WnwU) will be seen in their proper perspective (gt*j Roth).”
*a = Ching66. *b = Ch’u170. *c = She135. *d = Hsiang61. *e = Yen30.
*g = She64. *h = Erh128. *i = Rad. 109. *j = Tu53.
*k = Nien61: “To think of; to remember; to recall (1962)”.
There is so much work to be done. It is overwhelming to me because it is not the kind of work I am cut out to do. For instance: My provisional Neiye concordance could be improved. THE FIVE THOUSAND DICTIONARY CHINESE ENGLISH by C. H. Fenn, could be reduced to the less than 500 characters which appear more than once in the combined Ching and Neiye. Then you only have to sift through 1/10 the amount of characters to find the ones you are looking for.
. The study guide would start with the Chinese character lookup table. It would be similar to the RADICAL INDEX we have in Chinese dictionaries. But when you only have to identify 500 characters instead of 5000 then you can come up with some smart simplifications to find characters in seconds instead of minutes or hours. The character would be followed by a three-digit page number, as Fen and others have it, and there the concordance and other information about the character can be given. Going right back to the Chinese characters eliminates the need for my two-digit identifiers, even though they have helped me a lot. I have started on the Chinese look-up table before, but I had to give up because of the frustration this work causes me. What I need is a partner who gets as frustrated from doing serious semantic (B) work as I get from doing serious syntactic (C) work.
. The tree dimensions of semiotics are not arbitrary, they identify three classes of society, or tree types of human activities. Why do you think the social engineers had to make it “disappear”? …
===================================================
November 7, 2010
. In the Novembe
r 4 section there are two mistakes. At 3H (Neiye chapter 13 line H) “Intent(4P)” should be “Think(*a)”. *a = Hsiang61. How do you translate the line now?…
“Give-up the Thought of Conceiving It (^a*a8i_Z)” intellectually. Idiomatically (B) the idea (B) is the same, but semantically (C) the translation is not correct.
. At 9O (Chapter 19, line O) “.... Aligned (….^a)” should be “Aligned(%8)”. This is the kind of blatant mistake that tells me to pay more attention to what I have said in that section. The line that needs more attention is chapter 22, line j:
=j: If you are “Inwardly Tranquil and Outwardly Reverent (*a^a*b*c)” then ….
. *a = Nei11. *b = Wai36. It is in Ching chapter 7. *c = Ching 66: “To revere, sedate, respectful”. Different characters can have the same phonetic. That can be confusing. What can be even more confusing is when different characters have the same phonetic and the same radical number. My two-digit identifiers are a way to get around that. It may not be possible to find a unique two-digit identifier for the 7796 characters which are in my Hong Kong dictionary but it is possible to find one for the less than 500 characters which appear in more than one chapter of the Ching and the Neiye.
. In the original translation I had *?, *? And *? For *a, *b and *c. If I ad a Chinese character look-up table for these less than 500 characters I would have given their phonetic and radical number along with the translation when I did it the first time. It is only because of the two mistakes that I decided to invest the time and energy to find them in the dictionary. From the equivalents we get from my 5000 Chinese English phonetic dictionary we can see that Roth’s equivalents are correct, but there just had to be more to “Reverent(*c)”. …
Here is what I got from the ANALYSIS OF CHINESE CHARACTERS by G.D. Wilder & J.H. Ingrim: The character is #407 there: “…. To stand meek as a sheep and restrain ones words. With the addition of the radical which here can be taken as the one who wields power the idea is to be modest in the presence of those in authority.”
.. I said before that many characters can be read like a sentence. The two authors of this ANALYSIS have picked 1002 characters, most of which can be read like a paragraph. What they have done for the 1002 characters could be done for the less than 500 characters which appear more than once in the combined Ching and Neiye.
. Now let us look for what Ching(*c) tells us in the context of the Neiye. …
Those “in authority” are the ones who are on the level above of our own. To “restrain ones words” means to listen to them instead of talking back to them. To “stand meek” before them means to be willing and able to carryout their instructions. And this refers to each level within our human sphere of influence. …
For A it means to listen to the Creative Enrgy (E3). For B it means …
to listen to the message from A (E4). For C it means …
to listen to B.s (E5) instructions. And for D (E7) it means to carryout C’s (E6) instructions.
. You can see from this example that there is more in the Neiye and the Ching than meets the Eye. To see it we must listen to Lao Tzu’s instructions: …
He said: Don’t bite off more than you can chew! Start at the bottom, start with paying attention to the “Words(C2)” I am using! …
=================================================
November 4, 2010
The whole emerges through its parts and, having emerged, gives meaning to them.
. In syntactics, the sentence is the whole which emerges through its words and, having emerged, gives meaning to them. The “meaning” of sentences is studied in semantics, and the validity of the meaning is tested in the pragmatic dimension of “semiotics”. Semiotics is the whole which emerges through its semantic (B), syntactic (C), and pragmatic (D) dimensions.
. Please Google: semiotics Morris [ENTER] and: obscurantism Derrida [ENTER]. When something fundamental and basically simple is “Intentionally(4P)” complexified then we must ask Why? …
This is a “Means To find out the Truth (YIdoA1)”. HOW? ….
By “Intentionally” studying what has been complexified. What we are not supposed to know, tends to “disappear”. For “disappeared” see page 99 of LOVE The Real Da Vinci CODE by Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz.
By understanding the words in a sentence better we understand the sentence it is in better and by understanding a sentence better we are understanding the words it emerges through better. We have here a concrete example of the Law of Attraction.
. The Chinese character which means “Tranquility”, among other things, is in chapters 15, 16, 37, 45, 57 and 61 of the Tao Te Ching and in chapters 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25 and 26 of the Nei Yeh.
Yesterday we got to Neiye 8 but we have already worked on chapter 11 before that. So we will now continue with line H of chapter 13:
3H: “Still your Intent to Conceive It (^a4P8i_Z)”, the “Numinous($c)”, intellectually. We are told here that our intellectual center (B), which is in the semantic dimension of semiotics, and which uses Sensitive Energy (E5), is not the most suitable instrument to do this job. In Theosophy it is said that: The lower (centers) cannot comprehend the higher (ones). If you have worked on the Neiye before, you will notice that understanding this sentence better will help you to understand the paragraph, the sentence is in, better.
6A: If “People Can Align (mnab%8) themselves with the level above
. . their own level then they can be Tranquil(^a).”
6K: “…. Understand what is above, in Heaven(Tn) by what is Below(_-)” on
. . earth. In other words: Use analogy! This line doesn’t have Ching(^a) in it,
. . but I couldn’t resist quoting it.
9O: If your “Four Limbs Are Aligned (_4*?*?^a)” then
9P: your “Blood and your Ch’i Will-be Tranquil (*?#E*?^a).”
. . *? means that I didn’t invest the time and energy required to find the
. . character in a dictionary. Usually Roth’s equivalents are good enough.
. . My intellect (B) is getting fed up with doing other people’s dharma.
The numbering system, we have here, works fine up to chapter 20 but how do you number the lines of chapters 21 to 26 with a two digit numeral? …
The idea I have come up with is to use the +=- triad. The first impulse initiates the process, so + is number 1, next comes the connective, that = is number 2, and the third impulse is the outcome of the process, and that is number 3. But how do we address six chapters with three numerals? …
. . The same way we have addressed 20 chapters with ten numerals.
=j: If you are “Inwardly Tranquil and Outwardly Reverent (*?^a*?*?)” then
=k: you are “Able to Return to Your Innate-nature (ab$l_H*?).”
=K: If the “Tao Naturally Comes (A1Tuäz)” to you then
=M: you will be “Tranquil(^a) because Then you Got It (18gt_Z).”
-G: If your “Hsin is Able To-hold-on-to Tranquility (Hsab32^a)” then
-H: “Tao Will Naturally Fix (A141Tu8b)” itself. What are we told here? …
We are reminded that the observable 4-fold process in the construction business or in the original IBM computer programming system is a “Natural” one. …
The Tao flows downward, like water, from the most abstract level (A) to the most concrete (D) one. Let’s go over it “Again”. …
The customer (A) tells the thinker (B) what to think, B tells the talker (C) what to say and C tells the doer (D) what to do. …
The customer’s problem statement is solved intellectually in the semantic dimension (B) of semiotics, verbally in the syntactic dimension (C) and physically (D) in the pragmatic dimension D. If you clearly understand semiotics then you also know why our political masters have to make it “disappear”. Fortunately they can’t make the construction business disappear. It is not as good an example as computer programming, but we can use it until we recreate the programming system, perhaps as a game at first.
. A is the Aristotelian “final cause”. It is the customer’s description of what the supply is supposed to look and feel like in material form. B is the “formal cause”, language (C) is the connective between theory (B) and practice (D) and D is the “material cause”. At the “final” phase of the 4-fold process, the customer’s demand is converted into the supply and returned to the customer (A).
. The “Tao Follows ItSelf (A1ähTuJa).” I hope that a communicator (C) understands this basically simple idea well enough so that s/he can describe better than I can. …
=====================================================
November 2, 2010
. Neiye 11 consists of six numbered lines and one unnumbered line between lines E and F. This is unusual. What is even more unusual is the content of that line. In no other chapter, neither here nor in the Ching is “Heaven [(B), Humanity (C) and Earth (D)] Below (Tn_-)” it, spelled out as clearly as it is here. This calls for another translation of it.
. . . . . . . . . . . Neiye 11
1A: If your “Body is Not Aligned (@kPU%8)” with your mind (C),
. . C with your intellect (B) and B with your soul (A) then
1B: “Tê will Not Come (TÊPUäz).”
. . If Tê is not coming then the four
1C: “Centers will Not all be Tranquil (_=PU^a)”
. . and if even one of them is not tranquil then the three
1D: “Hsin Can’t be in Order (HsPU85).”
1E: “Aligning your Body Assists Tê (%8@k*aTÊ).”
. . If “Heaven, Humanity and Earth (Tn%5TI) are Aligned-and-tranquil(Üw) Then(18)
1F: Gradually, And by “It(Ja)”Self (1FJabtTu), it will Come(äz).”
Neiye 11.1 is the opposite of 11.3. These are the poles of the “DyAd(dyad)” in this “TriAd(_3ad)” At 11.1 we have: If you don’t, if you don’t and if you don’t do; while at 11.3 we have: If you do.
. “Aligning Body Assists Tê.”, is the neutral point between the opposites. So we have a “Negative(_-)” – “Neutral(_=)” – “Positive(_+)” (-=+) triad here. This is J. G. Bennett’s “LAW of IDENTITY …. ‘The Receptive Impulse [-] meets with the Reconciling Impulse [=] and is linked thereby to an Affirmation [+] that issues as manifestation.’ The receptive impulse cannot realize itself except through the medium of an affirmation; but it cannot blend with it without the help of the reconciling force. …. (Page 113 of THE DRAMATIC UNIVERSE)”. Neiye 11.1 cannot be turned into a “Positive” action “without the help of the reconciling force” at 1E.
. Mr.B has a lot more to say about this triad but much of it goes above my head and typing is not my dharma.
. A useful thing to know about all triads is that the first term “initiates” the process, the middle term is the connective and the third term is the “outcome” of the process. We can see here, at Neiye 11, how 11.2 relates 11.1 to 11.3. The “Negative” is turned into the “Positive” by the fact that “Aligning your Body will Assist Tê” in “Coming” to us. But, if it does, it will do it all by itself. But what we do or not do has something to do with its “Coming” or “Not Coming”.
. The idea I have just expressed here came to me automatically. It is not what I had written down by hand this morning. How come? …
The idea is not new to me. In fact it is no longer just an idea. How come? …
When we intentionally “Repeat(@1)” ideas (B), which we know to be true, we “Fix(8b)” them on a lower more concrete level of Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)”. More specifically we are stepping down Sensitive Energy (E5) to Automatic Energy (E6). On level C, ideas (B) become representations (C). What I know about representations I got from Steiner’s PHILOSOPHY of FREEDOM, but Steiner didn’t talk about energies in terms of the Dodecad as Mr.B did. We learn from J. G. Bennett that if we “Fix” an idea on level C, it comes to us automatically because the mind (C) works with Automatic Energy (E6). That will have to do. Let me, then, continue with what I have written down:
. . A . . . . Neiye 11 brings Ching 25.2 to mind. The 4-fold division
D .+ . B . we have there can also be described by means of the pendulum.
. . C . . . . The bob is at rest (A), it accelerates (B), it reaches maximum
. . . . . . . . velocity (C), it decelerates (D) and it is at rest “Again(@1)”.
“CycliciTy($lad), Tao’S Movement (A1_Z%k).”. From point A to point C potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. The moment all of the potential energy is converted, the bob decelerates. From point C to point A kinetic energy is converted to potential energy. The moment the bob stops, it starts “Again”. What made me think of that? …
As the connective at Neiye 1E is a neutral point, so A and C are neutral points. Identifying the monads in number-systems can be very educational. The content of 1E is neither “Negative(_-)” nor “Positive(_+)”, it is neutral. The same goes for points A and C. …
They are neither acceleration nor deceleration.
. “Before and After Mutually necessitate Sequence (#c60mt#e)” or time. Points A and C seem to be outside of time. We can say that they are in the present moment, in the NOW. This is where Eckhart Tolle’s The POWER of NOW comes in.
. TÊ = Tê60: “Virtue, goodness, principles in action; energy conduct”. R. L. Wing (Wing) has called his translation of the Ching THE TAO OF POWER. And often he and other translators have translated Tê as “Power”. There is a lot more in my notes, but I can’t say it all. Too complicated. And I am not a writer to say it in as many words as it would take to say it properly without turning you off. Let me just come around to Neiye 11 again:
1A: “Body Not Aligned”? …
1B: “Power will Not Come”. Power not come? …
1C: “Centers Not Tranquil (_=PU^a).”
. ^a = Ching174 15 16 37 45 57 61. Star has “stillness/ still/ repose/ tranquility/ serenity/ calm/ keeping still”. Also translated as “peace”. To quote all of these passages is too much syntactic (C) work for me. I have to be selective but the statistics we have here can be useful to you, even without me putting in the work. Even from quoting these three lines from Neiye 11 you can see how much light a better understanding of Ching(^a) can shed on this passage. Let me start with the Ching:
Ching 45:
“Restlessness Overcomes Cold (âd19*d);
. .Tranquility Overcomes Heat (^a19*e).” *d = Han40. *e = Jê86.
. Here “Restlessness” is contrasted with “Tranquility”.
Ching 61:
. “A great country is like a lowland toward which all streams flow. …. The Feminine always conquers the Masculine by her quietness[^a], by lowering herself through her quietness (J.Wu).” This idea of being “Lower(_-)” and thus more receptive to the instructions that flow to it from the “Higher(_+)” levels is an important aspect of Ching(^a). It is similar to “Aligning(%8)” yourself with the level above your own. And that sheds light on Neiye 11. If you are “Not Aligned (PU%8) Tê will Not Come (TÊPUäz)” to you. If you “Align your Body you Assist Tê (%8@k*aTÊ).” To align your body (D), your mind (C), your intellect (B) and your soul (A) must be aligned as well. If your “Hsing are Not in Order (HsPU85)” forget it.
. Now let us see what the Neiye can tell us about Ching(^a): If I have made no mistakes with my provisional Neiye concordance Ching(^a) is in 5, 7, 8, 11, 13 and 16, 19, 22, 25 and 26 Here is Neiye 5:
5c: If your “Hsin is Tranquil (Hs^a) and your breath is regular (Roth) then it
5d: “Will be Possible to Stop the Tao ($ppt$iA1)(A1$ppt$i).”
. This brings to mind what I have just said about the pendulum. If you are able to “Stop” the bob between the opposites then you might get a “Taste of that which is Without Taste (#KWU#K).” Even though I am just guessing here, some of people, like Eckhart Tolle, probably get more out of this than I do.
5m: “Cultivate your intellect by making your thoughts tranquil and in that
5n: Way it Will be Possible to Attain (A1$pptgt)” it.
7c: For “Humans the Ruling-principle is Alignment (mn%n^a).”
8a: If you are “Able to Align (ab%8) yourself then you Can be Tranquil (ab^a)”
8b: and “Only Then (Ja4R) will you be Able to do the Fixing (ab8b).”
. We have here specific and emphatic instructions of HOW to do the “Fixing(8b)”. First you have to “Align” yourself with the level above your own to find out WHAT is to be fixed. And then you have to step it down to your own level. If you are on level B you have to align yourself with level A. You are looking at the poetry (A) and ask yourself: WHAT does it mean? …
“True Words are Not Beautiful (09C2PU%b);
.Beautiful Words are not True (%bC2PU09).” What thinkers (B) have to do is convert “Beautiful Words” into “True Words”. When after the seeking you find the question to ask and after the asking you receive the answer it feels good. We can call that “Tranquility” but the joy is only short-lived because now you are stuck with the task of conveying the idea in “Words(C2)”. If I had a communicator (C) for a partner, who is eagerly waiting for my next ideas to communicate, all would be fine. But I am afraid that Lao Tzu is right in saying “WordErs Don’t Know (C2erPUkn)” what their dharma is. So I am stuck with spending hours in getting ideas across that came to me in a fraction of a second. And I don’t get them across as nicely and efficiently as a communicator could do it.
. Communicators can communicate more in less time and with less energy than I can do it with. And they can do a better job.
. What I am doing here is not the “Fixing”. The “Fixing” is analogous to a programmer (B) giving a flowchart to a coder (C). What I have to do here is doing the coding myself and I am doing a lousy job. And I don’t like it. I’ll quit for now. I’ll look at the remaining chapters tomorrow. In spite of all this gloominess, the Neiye is just terrific.
===============================================================
October 31, 2010
. . . . . . . . . The Tao Te Ching chapter 71
1: “Knowing that you Don’t Know (knPUkn) is Healthy(_+).”
2: “Not Knowing it, that you don’t Know (PUknkn) is Sick(@p).”
3: “He Who (heho) Sick Sick (@p@p), who does not know that he
. does not know, ThereFore(SiYI) does Not feel Sick (PU@p).”
4: Intelligent People (wsmn) are Not Sick Because (PU@pYI) of
. This Sick Sick (_H@p@p) ThereFore they are Not Sick (SiYIPU@p).”
Its been 40 years since this chapter got me going on the Ching and still there are lessons that come up even now, right this morning. They come as a flash, but HOW do I tell you about it? ...
A good Way to tell you is by describing exactly WHAT has led up to it.
. We were working on Neiye 10 quite recently in this blog. It is good idea to go over what you know to be true “Again(@1)”. That will “Fix(8b)” the idea (B) more solidly on level C. Our mind (C) does not think (B), it computes (C). Computing is much more efficient than thinking, it is done automatically with Automatic Energy (E6). That’s why Aristotle has called it the “efficient cause”.So the “Fixing” is a stepping down of energy from a higher level to the level below it. In our case, we are “Fixing”, or stepping down E5 to E6.
. Now back to Neiye 10. The last line is:
0i: “This One-Word is Called (Tz_ZisYe).” What is the poet telling us here? …
I am not going to give the answer away. You figure it out yourself. Its like my convention of putting three dots at the end of a line. So what is the answer? …
If you understand why there are “Four(_4)” “sources”, or parts of the tetrad, in the construction business, then the first paragraph of Neiye 10 makes perfect sense. The original IBM computer programming system is an even better example of the tetrad because the designers of that system must have known the Aristotelian tetrad. But because our political masters have made it “disappear” we can’t get the direct experience of it anymore. But their attempt to prevent us from experiencing the fourfold process directly can cause us to pay more attention to it. For now I will stick to the fourfold construction business.
. We have gone over the four-fold process in this blog before, but “Repeating(@1)” what you know to be true is a very good idea. So hare we go “Again(@1)”:
Step 1: The Customer (A) tells the architect or programmer (B) WHAT s/he wants.
. . That is the demand. The supply consists of three steps.
Step 2: The architect tells the contractor (C) WHAT the customer wants, and
Step 3: the contractor tells his subcontractors (D) WHAT the customer wants.
. What runs top-down, deductively, through these three levels of abstraction is the customer’s demand. If the architect, the contractor or the subcontractors don’t do their part of the job properly, then the customer’s demand is not supplied properly and there will be no pay for all of them.
8l: Of “All of Hsin’S Forms (1aHs_Z@k)” if one of them
8m: “Bypasses the Known (#ikn) boundaries then there will be Loss of Production (37Sg).” Hsin is the A-B-C “TriAd(_3ad)”.
Now let us look at Neiye 10a – d:
a: With “Orderly Hsin In their Centers (85HsÜp_=)
b: Orderly Words Come-out From their Mouths (85C2Cuto@l) and
c: Orderly Tasks are Assigned To Other (85D2*atomn)” people to be
. carried out by them. and
d: Only Then (Ja18), when those in Heaven and the two levels Below (Tn_-)
. them do their job properly, only then can they be in Order(85).”
Hsin(Hs), Rad. 61, means “Heart, mind; center” Star tells us in his dictionary how other translators have translated it: “Heart, mind, heart-mind // the will, intention, motive affections // the center, middle.”
. When the context demands “Heart” (A), heart is correct, when it demands “Mind” (C), mind is correct. When it demands the intellect (B), in the “Center” between A and C, then intellect (B), is correct, and when the context demands all three of them, then “Hsin) is correct. Chinese characters mean what the context demands. A Chinese character can be singular or plural but you can’t translate Hsin as Hsins because that would be another character. It takes some getting used to this Chinese terminology, but once you “Get(gt)” it, it turns out to be very useful. Let us look at line O of chapter 14 to give you a good example of why we must start our study at the bottom with paying attention to the keywords in the Ching and the Neiye.
O: In “Hsin’S Center Again There-is another Hsin (Hs_Z_=@1YUHs).” How do you translate Hsin here? …
O: “In the heart’s center there is the intellect.” How else can you read that? …
O: “In the intellect’s center there is the mind.” In the Ching, as well as here, either you leave characters un-translated or you have to give alternative readings of the same characters to convey the full meaning. Hsin refers to the A-B-C “TriAd(_3ad)”.
. So much for line a of chapter 10. Here comes line b: The fact that “Orderly Words Come-out From (A, B or C’s) Mouth” (D), means that we are given an objective example of the tetrad. We have a soul (A), an intellect (B), a mind (C) and a body (D), but to tell ourselves what to do, we don’t need our “Mouth(@l)” to do so. We know objectively that the customer (A) tells the architect (B) what kind of building s/he wants, the architect tells the Contractor (C) by means of the blueprint and verbally what the customer wants and the contractor tells his subcontractors (D) verbally what the customer wants.
. I will now give you the second paragraph of Neiye 10:
e: “One Word Grasped (_1C2gt)
f: And those in Heaven and [on level C and D] Below (btTn_-) it
. will Submit(Üz).” They will carry out the instructions given to them.
g: “One Word Fixed (_1C28b), stepped down,
h: And, if those in Heaven and Below it grasp that one word, then they will Listen (btTn_-@H)” to the details.
. @H = T’ing128 “To hear, listen, obey; smell”. It is in Ching 14 and 35.
14.1,2: You “Listen for It but do Not Hear (@H_ZPU^d)”.
35: You “Listen for It but there is Not Enough for you to Hear (@H_ZPUZu^d).”
. We don’t only “Hear” with our Ears (D), our mind (C) must interpret what we “Hear”. If a contractor (C) gives his instructions to his subcontractors (D) in Greek and they don’t understand Greek, then there is “Not Enough for them to Hear”.
November 1, 2010
. This is roughly as far as I got yesterday. I got stuck on the second paragraph of Neiye 10. As a result of working on Neiye 10, Ching 71 came to mind. Why? ..
Because I knew that I knew Neiye 10.1 and I “Knew that I Didn’t Know (knPUkn) the rest of the chapter, and that is Healthy(_+).” Why? …
Because that knowledge causes us to work on what we don’t know. Now, between yesterday and today my knowledge of Neiye 10.2 has increased. And I have added interpretations to the second paragraph above. Even though I still don’t fully understand it, I can no longer say that I “Don’t Understand (PUkn)” it. And that calls for a change in plan.
. Neiye 10.1 and 10.3 form the “DyAd(dyad)” in this “TriAd(_3ad)” and 10.2 is the connective. I don’t know it as well as I know 10.1 but I know it better than !0.3. What may require a book to communicate properly can be communicated quite efficiently to a communicator by means of systematics:
. Hsin(Hs) is the A-B-C triad and “Heaven Below(Tn_-)” is the B-C-D triad. This triad is semiotics. The reason semiotics is primarily about communication is because the syntactic dimension of semiotics is the connective in this triad. There is still another reason for it. …
Try to figure it out for yourself. …
Our political masters don’t want us to understand it. Their efforts of preventing us from understanding it can be our “Means To find out the Truth (YIdoA1).” Finding out the truth for yourself, including falsifying what is false in what I say, is better than passively believing (C) what I am saying. Back to systematics:
. B and C are the “impulses”, the parts of the triad, which are common to A-B-C and B-C-D or semiotics. A “DyAd” can be read as a “Unit($1)”. We can read the A-B-C-D tetrad as an A-(B-C)-D triad. Now we need more detail from the Ching:
Ching 42.1: The Big “Tao Produced the One (A1Sg_1), the
One Produced the Two (_1Sg_2), the
Two Produced the Tree (_2Sg_3) and the
Three Produces All Things (_3SgWnwU).” Try to “Identify(Mg)” the four “Monads” in terms of Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)”. …
Make the “Big tao Small (TAsm)”! …
When the “Big Tao is Split-up (TAA1@m) first we Have(YU)” the government of the People(%5)”, which is a democracy (A). The same goes for other chapters. The “Big tao always produces the Small (TAsm)” Tao first. At Ching 42.1, the small Tao is called the “One(_1)”. When you know the Ching well “Enough(Zu)” you don’t have to think (B) to figure this out, You can do it much more efficiently by computation (C). There are people out there who know the Ching better than I do. They should be able to come up with more examples from the Ching to substantiate what I have said here. That is the kind of communicator (C) I would like to work with. If s/he knows how to use Chinese word-processing software we could work on the Chinese character look-up table. Because it would be very useful to me, I know that it would be useful to other students of the Ching and the Neiye. It would save them time. We could put it out on the internet and ask for a donation. Like my boat, this would be the better mousetrap.
. So the “Big Tao” always produces the small Tao first. That is the “One(_1)”. That is the first. So what is the last? …
What is the outcome of the B-C-D triad? …
“All material Things (WnwU)”. The two “sources” in the middle of the tetrad are one “impulse” in the middle of the A-(B-C)-D triad. So we have identified B-C as the connective in this triad.
. Things come in “Pairs(dy)” in the Ching and the Neiye. Neiye 11 is the opposite of Neiye 10. Working on it might clarify what may be obscure to you in this long section. But please, don’t wait passively for what I might say about it, try to predict what I will say: In case you don’t have Harold D. Roth’s translation of the Nei Yeh, here it is:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . Neiye 11
1A: If your “Body is Not Aligned (@kPU%8)” then
1B: Tê will Not Come (TÊPUäz), your four
1C: Centers will Not be Tranquil (_=PU^a) and your three
1D: Hsin will Not be in Order (HsPU85).”
1E: “Aligning your Body will Assist Tê (%8@h*aTÊ)
. . . . if Heaven-Humanity-Earth are Properly-aligned (Tn%5TIÜw) Then (18)
1F: Gradually It, And by it Self, will Come (1FJabtTuäz).”
. *a = She64. 1F = Yin85. The rest if the information is in my dictionary in file #5. So there you have some work to do. …
======================================================
October 23, 2010
. The easiest way to start a new section is to tell you about a mistake I have made in the previous one. It seems to me that that’s what mistakes are for. Can you see it? …
In the October 21 section I said that “A-D-C-B is an unusual sequence”. …
And earlier in that same section I said: “At Ching 17.1 the sequence is: A-D-C-B.”
. . .. . . . . . .; . . . . . . . . . Ching 17.
“The highest type of ruler is one of whose existence the people are barely aware (*a_+_-knYU_Z J.Wu).” *a = T’a37. This is the ruler Lao Tzu is talking to, at Ching 3.5: “Govern Without Doing (doWUdo) the governing yourself. Then Nothing will Not be Governed (18WUPU85).” The highest type of” government is a democracy (A).
. “Next comes the one whom they love and praise (_H$e%5mbt*b_Z).” *b = Yü149: “To eulogize”. If you read Linda McQuaig’s books then you know that this is not the most accurate Way to describe capitalism (D) but, if you want to characterize it in a single sentence, then using the image capitalists are creating of themselves in the minds of the people is the best Way to do it. Just look at actors telling you how much they “Love(%m)” the product they are advertising. And look at how those beautiful and attractive actresses “eulogize(*b)” the product that is supposed to have made them attractive and beautiful.
. “The Next (_H$e) ruler, the people Fear Him (âl_Z).” In the September sections I have written about Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Officially he in not a dictator (C) yet but we can learn a lot about it from him because he already begins to act like one. If we can believe his opponents then people who are against him are ”disappearing”. Whether the CIA is doing it or Chavez’s own future GESTAPO is doing it, is yet to be determined but the effect of the disappearances is that people are afraid to go against him. Fear is the power behind dictatorship (C) and Chavez is already using it to stay in power. And if it becomes clear to him that he can’t win the next election then the unprecedented homicide problem is a good excuse to call for a permanent marshal law, as Hitler did. He will have to deal with the problem as Fidel Castro does. That over 90% of the murders go unsolved is suspicious. If the CIA does the killing it is suspicious that so far not one of them got caught. If Chavez’s future GESTAPO does it, all he has to do is tell them to stop it and it will make him look really good. You can also find out about dictatorship from the Protocols of Zion.
. ”The Next (_H$e) ruler, the people Despise Him (*c_Z)”. *c = Wu9. These rulers are called ”Hypocrites” (B) at Ching 18. The whole of Ching 18 is a tetrad. Here, in Ching 17, only the first paragraph is a tetrad. I am following John C. H. Wu (J.Wu) here. He has divided the chapter into three paragraphs. The chapter is 44 characters long. The first paragraph took up 20 characters. The second paragraph, the connective in this ”TriAd(_3ad)”, consists of only 8 characters: Is your knowledge of the
”Truth Not Enough (09PUZu)? Why(86)? do you
.Have No (YUPU) knowledge of the Truth(09)? Why(86)?”
. My interpretations (in lower case) may seem far fetched, but let us just go back to Ching 3: The rulers in an ”Intelligent Man”S Government (wsmn_Z85) …. Always Cause the People (Cn%eMn) to be Without Knowledge and Without the Desire (WUknWUYÜ)” to know. In other words, they are dumbing us down and Lao Tzu is advising us to ask ”Why(86)” they are doing it. He said that over 2300 years ago. So it is about time that we listen.
. The last paragraph is 16 characters long. Here he elaborates on ”The highest type of ruler” Here is J.Wu”s translation of it:
”The Sage is self-effacing and scanty of words [He ”Values Words (KuC2)”].
When his task is accomplished and things have been completed,
All the people say, ‘We ourselves have achieved it!’.”
. In this subtle Way Hugo Chavez could stay in power. When the people collectively got Chavez back there was so much hope for Venezuela. Look what the people united can do. But look at it now. One of the first things Chavez did after he was back in power was to take over the educational system.
. Desmond Lee introduces the section starting at 421d of Plato’s Republic as follows: ”…. Above all they must maintain the educational system unchanged; for on education everything else depends, and it is an illusion to imagine that mere legislation without it can effect anything of consequence.” I was at the talk the Dalai Lama has given here in Toronto yesterday and again much emphasis was on ”EDUCATION”.
. Chavez knows what he is doing but is he using his knowledge FOR the people? These questions come up when studying the Tao Te Ching. The Ching is primarily about philosophy (B) but Lao Tzu is using more concrete examples from politics (C) to illustrate the ”Concepts(B1) ” he is trying to get across to us.
. We have identified the sequence in which the four monads are given at Neiye 1 and at Ching 17. Let us now do the same thing with Ching 41.1.
. Again I am following J.Wu in identifying the first paragraph. J.Wu and Wing are my two favorite translators. Wing has translated the ”TriAd(_3ad) ” in front of Ching 41 and the “Monad($1)” following it as separate paragraphs. I agree with J.Wu that the first four sentences should be read as one paragraph. Paragraphs can be “DyAds(dyad)”, “Triads(_3ad)” or tetrads.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ching 41.1: When
1: ”Above average Students Hear the Truth (_+Ün^dA1) they will
. .Diligently study And Practice It (#6btpr_Z). when
2: Average People Hear the Truth (_=Ün^dA1) then
. .As easy it Come As easy it Go (JO$bJO^k). when
3: Below average Scholars Hear the Truth (_-Ün^dA1) they will
. ..Greatly Ridicule It (TA*a_Z). if they do
4: Not Ridicule (PU*a) it then we
. .Don’t have Enough Means To find out the Truth (PU*aPUZuYIdoA1).”
*a = Hsiao118. I think it is best to let these words speak for themselves. But please don’t forget the reason for which we came here. We were going to “Identify(Mg)” the monads in terms of Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)”. …
Hint: The first sentence is representing level A. If A is the best type of government, what is the worst type? …
And which type is between them?. …
And after you have identified the three impulses of this triad, which “source”, or part of the tetrad, is left out? …
. I hope that you follow up on this. Notice how important questions are. If you don’t have questions then you can’t answer them. I know that this is demanding, but, if communicators (C) want to do their dharma then they have to be willing to make that effort.
. Warning, the questions, above, may be trick questions. As with many sentences in the Ching, there maybe more than one possible interpretation for the same characters.
October 26, 2010
. It looks like that, thanks to my internet guru, I can get back on my blog again. But it is still a good idea to put this section in sequence, instead of in front.
. In the October 11 section I came up with a question. And now that I came up with an answer, I ended up with a bunch of new ones. Following Lao Tzu’s advise, it is not a good idea to try to bite off more than you can chew. A good Way to move forward is to go over chapters you already know. Going over a chapter you already know “Again(@1)” “Fixes(8b)” it on a more concrete level. In other words, you are stepping down knowledge (E5) to representations (E6).
. The chapter I am going to pick is . . . . . . . Ching 25: It
1: “Existed as Something Undifferentiated and Complete (YUwU#Ocm)
. Before Heaven and Earth were Born (^7TnTISg). ….
. I Don’t Know Its Name (myPUkn_HMg). the Character “We-have-for(73)” it is
. Tao (Zi_Z73A1). if Forced To give It another Name (57do_ZMg)
. I-would-call-it(73) Big(TA).”
2: If we let “Big Mean-being-at-home,-having-been-home-mean (TA73)
. Going out, having Gone Mean (*g*g73)
. Arriving, and having Arrived Mean ($t$t73)
. Returning Then ($lKU)” having returned means being back home again.
. . . *g = Shih162.
3: The small, or separated “Tao is a part of the Big (A1TA),
. Heaven is also a part of the Big (TnTA) tao, Earth is also Ta (TITA) and the
. King is Also a part of the Big (_E08TA) tao. In the Universe, then,
. There-are Four divisions of the Big (_=*hYU_4TA)(*h_=YU_4TA) tao.
. And the King (bt_E) is one of them (Cü_H_186).”
4: Man Follows Earth (mnähTI, Earth Follows Heaven (TIähTn),
. Heaven Follows the Tao (TnähA1) and the Tao Follows ItSelf (A1ähTuJa).”
. . . *h = Yü32.
. In other words, the small Tao followed the big Tao, Heaven (B) followed the Tao (A), Earth (D) followed B and humanity (C) followed D. The Creator had to create an earth before he could create mankind. We also get that idea from Genesis. But we are not God. However, within our sphere of influence we are responsible to do our own dharma. D must “Align(%8)” itself to C, C to B, B to A and the small A to the “Big(TA)” A.
. I have told the story before, but it is a good thing to “Repeat(@1)” what we know to work because what works is true and what is true works. Why else would the social engineers make the IBM computer programming system “disappear”? …
. I was a partner in a small computer programming company. General Electric was one of our customers (A) but I never spoke to GE. The person I got my “job-description” (A) from was a manager in GE. I would the do my “job-analysis” (B) and then I would do the “coding” (C) and then the computer (D) would “Execute” the instructions I gave it. If any one of these four jobs isn’t done properly then GM’s demand will not be supplied. The money we got for our work doesn’t come from the manager I was dealing with, it came from GE.
. The designers of the IBM computer programming system must have used the Aristotelian tetrad. Also the 1401 computer's machine language was very English-like. A computer language consists only of imperative sentences. So it was very easy to learn it. GE had their own computer department but there must have been some jobs they couldn’t do. I still remember the title my manager told me to call a program he gave me to do: “Band-Aid for crippled GE computer department.
. If you go back over my blog, you can see how useful my nine years experience as a computer programmer were to me. Why are examples from the economic sphere (D) so useful? …
Because the Law of Correspondence is universal: As above, in “Heaven, so Below (Tn_-)”, on earth. The syntactic dimension of semiotics (C) is the connective between theory (B) and practice (D). This is why Lao Tzu uses examples from the political sphere (C) of society. Again, instead of trying to describe what Lao Tzu means by “Approaching Big tasks From The Small (doTAto_Häl)” ones, I am giving you an example of it.
=============================================================
I get back on my blog, but it is best to read the last few section in the sequence they come.
October 21, 2010
. Instead of putting out another section in my blog, I put out a flier here in Toronto. Since I don’t know HTML, I can’t show you how it looks like but I can give you a good idea of it by giving you the point sizes I have used. For the “Nei-yeh …. 1” I have used 72 points, for “chapter” and the poem I have used 26 points, for the spaces between the paragraphs I have used 8 points and the rest of the flier is in 18 points. What you got below is he whole thing in 12 points.
Nei-yeh chapter 1
The essence of all things
Brings them to life.
Below, it produces the five grains;
Above, it creates Consolidated Stars.
Flowing between heaven and earth,
Call it ghostly or numinous.
Stored in our intellectual center,
Call it the intelligence in man.
Above you have a translation of a Chinese poem that
was written down over 2300 years ago. Properly
“Aligned Words Likely Reverse (%8C2JO$l).”.
For the %8, C2, JO and $l, see my dictionary in
front of file #5 of PetersTao.blogspot.com
With these four words Lao Tzu is telling us
that: If we work on these Chinese characters then
they will work on us. But not Harold D. Roth, not
even Lao Tzu can do your thinking for you.
The idea behind this flyer is to get you interested
enough in this poetry so that it will speak for itself.
What I am trying to achieve with this flier is to get just one communicator (C) to get interested “Enough(Zu)” in that poetry to come to my blog. I hope that the poem will speak for itself. The problem is that English is not Chinese.
. There are a total of (4 X 8 =) 32 characters in that first chapter of the Neiye. Chih(_Z) appears three times while Wei(do) and Wei(is) appear twice. That's 32 – 4. And, if you have done any work on the Tao Te Ching at all, you will already know most of these 28 characters. So, simply by working on these books, you will get to know the characters in them.
. Starting with the October 10 section, you get a description of how I have learned some lessons which are in that first chapter of the Neiye. If you read on from here, then you will find out WHAT I have learned; if you skip down to the October 10 section and follow them back up to here you not only learn WHAT I have learned but also HOW I have learned it. When I started out on this project I had reasons to believe that the Tao (A) is represented by the first paragraph. At Ching 17.1 the sequence is: A-D-C-B. At Ching 18 and 25.3 it is: A-B-D-C. At 25.4 idiomatically (B) we have the same sequence, but literally (C), the sequence is “Reversed($l)”. Lao Tzu says there:
“Man Follows Earth (mnähTI) Earth Follows Heaven (TIähTn) Heaveen Follows Tao (TnähA1) and Tao Follows ItSelf (A1ähTuJa). At Ching 25.3 Lao Tzu has “Named(Mg)” the four divisions. This tells us that in time and space C Follows D, D Follows B, B follows A and the divided Tao Follows the “Big Tao (TAA1)”.
. The four paragraphs in Ching 25 follow the Aristotelian sequence. At 25.2 Lao Tzu shows HOW the “Big(TA)” Tao is divided into four divisions. There he has “Identified(Mg)” the four parts of the “Big” one. At Ching 25.3 he has “Named(Mg)” them: The divided “Tao is a part of the Big tao (A1TA), Heaven Big (TnTA), Earth Big (TITA) and the King is Also a part of the Big (_E08TA)” Tao. Why don’t we have the Aristotelian sequence here? Why does “Man Follows Earth”? …
Because before man can walk on earth, there has to be one.The point I am making here is that it is reasonable to assume that the first paragraph is related to one. The next thing, which is safe to assume is that the last paragraph is referring to level B. That's two down two to go. From Neiye 14 we know that level C is between Heaven (B) and Earth. Even though the poet is talking here about cosmology, the Law of Correspondence is universal. It applies to the macrocosm and the microcosm of “All Men (1amn)”. If this is true, then paragraph 2 must relate to level D. A-D-C-B is an unusual sequence which must still be verified or falsified.
. I know that this is hard to follow. It is as Lao Tzu said: “KnowErs are Not good with Words (knerPUC2); WordErs Don’t Know (C2erPUkn)” WHAT to say. That is why Lao Tzu as advised us to “Unite Our Dust ($1_H@h)”. But “WordErs Don’t seem to Understand” that either.
. All I can do is try to reach that one writer (C) who is willing to say this better. As I said before, the Ching and the Neiye are the best. You really can’t go wrong by “Working(D2)” on the best. But we have to work on it as a team. So far, only the poets (A) have done their job. And, if we don’t “Follows” up from there, their work will have been in vain.
=========================================================
October 18, 2010
. On October 10 I have translated Neiye 1. On October 11 I made some small corrections on it and came up with the question which still keeps me busy. The question is the first step in the problem-solving process. Without the question there is no problem to solve.
. Let me go over Neiye 1 again to show what lead up to the question:
1a: The “Essence Of All Things (#S_Z1awU)(1awU_Z#S)
1b: Brings Them To Life (18TzdoSg)(Tz18doSg).”
. Notice the new convention: The first group of four identifiers (in brackets) gives the sequence in which the English equivalents appear in translation while the second group gives the sequence in which the four characters appear in the original Chinese. I came up with that idea this morning, I hope you like it.
. For the next paragraph we don’t need the convention. In fact, we only need the first characters of the next two lines.
1c: “Negative(_-) ….”. “Gains” in this line should be Grains. How could that one slip through? The first character in 1d is “Positive(_+)”. The question is: …
What does the “Negative” – “Positive” “DyAd(dyad)” mean in this context? …
This question led me to Ching 63.2 because there we have another paragraph which is a “DyAd” and which has “Heaven Below (Tn_-) in front of each line.
“.... Difficult Tasks Necessarily Arise From Easy (....dfD2PI%ctoez) ones.
. . . . .... Big Tasks Necessarily Arise from Small (TAD2PI%ctoäl)” ones.
. The “Difficult(df)” and “Easy(ez)” took me to Ching 2.2,2:
“Difficult and Easy Mutually necessitate a task to be Completed (dfezmtcm).”
. The “Complete(cm)” took me to Ching 63.3. See it in the October 11 section. The reason Ching 63 comes to mind that often is because I have worked on it more than on most other chapters. We can now return to Neiye 1.2.
1c: :”Below itself the essence Produces the Five Grains (_-Sg_5*a)
1d: . Above its own level it Becomes the Constellated Stars (_+do*b*c).”
. We are getting here into cosmology that goes above my head but let us not despair. The provisional concordance I have produced leads us to Neiye 14:
4E: The mind (C) “Reaches “Up(_+)” To Heaven (_+*atoTn) and it
4F: Stretches Down To Earth. (*b_-toTI)(_-*btoTI).”
. For *a and *b I have used Roth’s equivalents. Notice that on line E I have used the old convention and on line F I have used the new one.. Both work, both take getting used to. Doing a straight forward conventional translation has advantages but you don’t get to know the characters. You don’t know how valid a translation is. And you don't know how much of it is translation and how much of it is interpretation.
. Question: Which part of us reaches up to align itself with our intellect (B) and stretches down to our body (D) by stepping down E5 to E7? …
If you have followed me for a while then you know that it is our mind (C). C is the connective between B and D.
. I am a jnana yogi (B). My dharma is doing what I am doing right here. What enables me to do my dharma is the fact that the poets (A) have done theirs. By studying their poetry I am “Aligning(%8)” myself with them. After I have “Stepped-down(8b)” their poetry from E4 (A) to E5 (B), after I understand a verse, I have to sit down in front of my keyboard and describe in words (C) what I know (B) as best as I can. That’s my job. Now what is the job of a communicator, a “WordEr(C2er)” or raja yogi (C)? …
. I shall leave you with that question for a while.
=====================================================
October 15, 2010
. If you work on the Ching or the Neiye, they will work on you. Question is: …
HOW do we have to work on these books? …
One Way is the top-down, or deductive, approach to problem solving. It happens when the answer to our question comes to us. We don't really do it. We “Do it Without Doing (doWUdo)” it. We can’t decide when these “Insights(72)” are supposed to arrive. But we can work on the bottom-up, or inductive, approach to problem solving. This approach is described at Ching 63:
63.1,2: You can participate in accomplishing the big “Tasks Without doing the Tasks (D2WUD2)” others should be doing. You can do some of the work they should be doing but you can’t do it as well as they can. Why? …
Because you don’t have the “natural aptitude (as Plato put it)” they have. You can't (Actualize a Potential (A1pt)” you don’t have. But what if “WordErs Don’t Know (C2erPUkn)” what their dharma is? …
Then, by doing their dharma you are showing them what it is. I also spell it out. I am telling any communicator (C), who reads this: If you know that you could say this better than I can, then this is your dharma. You are “Able(ab)” to do it, now all you need is the willingness to do your dharma. Of course, they have to understand WHAT I am saying because you can’t explain an idea you don’t understand. Communication consists of two components: The listening comes first and then comes the talking. “WordErs(C2er)” is usually translated as “talkers” but that is only half of what “WordEr” means.
. If you are a communicator (C) And you want to “Unite Your Dust ($1_H@h)” with mine, you can find my address in here. Just use the FIND function of your word-processor to find: peter.
. To get you interested, let me quote a bit more from Ching 63:
63.1.4: Make “Big tasks Small (TAsm)”! HOW? …
63.1,8: Approach Big tasks From The Small (doTAto_Häl)” ones. In other words: Use induction. The “Small(äl)” we have here is a different character than the “Small(sm)” we have at 63.1,4. What is Lao Tzu trying to tell us here? If you have a translation that is accompanied by the original Chinese text, have a look at the character. …
Its left component is the radical. It is Mi120. In the context it is in here it means “Rope” but it is not in the Ching. Its right component is T’ien102. Its primary equivalent is “Field”. This character is only in chapter 53, so we don’t have the two-digit identifier for it. The picture of “Field(*53) is a big field with a cross (+) in it. You can see from the picture that a “Big field has been divided into four Smaller (TAsm)” fields with a Rope120.
Hsi(äl) is also in Ching 67: J.Wu puts it this way: “…. my Tao is great …. But just because it is great (J.Wu) it is Small(äl)”.
Ching 321,1: The big “Tao is Always Without Names (A1CnWUMg”).” The big Tao is the whole of which the four small Taos are the parts and they can have any name the context demands. At Ching 1.1,1 it is the opposite of “Potential(pt)”. Lao Tzu is talking about “DyAds(dyad)” here. What, then, is the first thing he is telling us? …
“Actualize your Potential (A1pt)!” HOW? …
By “Taoing the TaoAble (A1ptA1)!”, by “Doing what you Can Do (A1ptA1)”. At 1.1,2 Lao Tzu is substituting “Name(Mg)” for the Tao. At 1.2,1 we have “Concept(B2)” for it. At 1.3 it is “Desire(YÜ)”. At 1.3,1 it is “Without Desire(WUYÜ)” and at 1.3,2 it is “With Desire (YUYÜ)”. Lao Tzu is using the Law of Correspondence to teach: At 1.2,1 we have “Without Name(WUMg)”, which is the “NamAble(ptMg)” we have at 1.1.2. First comes the nameable, then comes the naming and then comes the named. The named “Has a Name (YUMg)” and that’s what we have at 1.2,2.. Ching 1.1,2 reads: “Name the NamAble (MgpuMg) to get its Opposite(Fy), the named (CnMg)!” “NamEd” is not the literal meaning of Ch’ang Ming but in this context it is their idiomatic meaning. The “Opposite(Fy)” of the “NamAble(ptMg)” is the named. If you want to be a student of Lao Tzu, you have to pay attention to these details.
Ching 34.1,1: The “Big Tao is universal like a Flood (TAA1*a)”. *a = Fan85:
Ching 18: When the “Big Tao Splits-up (TaA1@m) we Have(YU)” first democracy (A), then Hypocracy (B) then capitalism (D) and then dictatorship (C).
. Let us now return to Ching 63: 63.2 consists of two analogous statements:
63.2,1: Heaven Below (Tn_-). Difficult Tasks Necessarily Arise From Easy
. . . . . (dfD2PI%ctoez) ones.
63.2,2: As above, in “Heaven, so Below (Tn_-) on earth. Big Tasks Necessarily
. . . . . .Arise From Small (TAD2PI%ctoäl)” ones.
. The character translated as “Easy(äl)” here is the same we have at 63.1,8. We learn from Ching 2 that “Big Tasks (TAD2)” can be “Difficult Task (dfD2)” if you don’t break them down into more manageable smaller tasks.
. 63.3 is one sentence, I have already given it in the October 11 section but, due to the work we have done above, you are now ready for an addition to the interpretation (in lower case). 63.3:
. “ThereFore (SiYi) Intelligent People (wsmn) Throughout-their-lives(nG) Don’t Take-on (PUdo) tasks which are too Big(TA) for them, and Therefore(KU) they are Able(ab) to participate in Accomplishing The Big (cn_HTA)” task.
The line of thought, I have followed here, isn’t new, you can find it in earlier sections of this blog. What is different is the Way I got into it. It started with Neiye 1.2. Hsia(_-) is the first character of 1.2,1 and Shang(_+) is the first character of 1.2,2. This led me to Ching 63.2 because Ching 63 is one of the earlier chapters I have studied as seriously as I have studied Ching 71, which is the one that got me going on this book.
. My 5000 phonetic dictionary has “Below, down, next”. For Hsia and for Shang(_+) it has “Àbove: upon: go up, go to: superior”. But in the Ching they mean more than that. At Ching 2 we have the `Heaven Below (Tn_-)`` in front. It means that we are going to continue with the `DyAd(dyad)``, which we have in Ching 1.4,1, but it also refers to the law of correspondence. We are told by means of the first two characters of Ching 2 that all “DyAds`` and all “TriAds(_3ad)”, of which we get six examples at 2.2, correspond to each other.
October 16, 2010
. The work I have done yesterday, above, takes more time and energy for me than it would take a “WordEr(C2er)” to do it, and s/he could do a better job than I can do. I didn’t “Complete(cm)” describing the thought I “Intended(4P)” to complete, but I had to take a break. 4P = I (orYi)61 At 5l Roth has “conceived” and at 4N he has “awareness”. The dictionary has: “Thought, will, intention”. Using the equivalent of a Chinese character causes us to remember them. It is a “Stepping-down(8b) of energy from E5 to E6. As doctors, politicians, computer scientists, semiologist etc. have to develop their own terminology, or jargon, so must we. Our jargon consists of the four division of the tetrad, the A, B, C, D on Plato’s “Divided Line (509d), and J. G. Bennett’s two-digit identifiers of the 12 division of the Dodecad. Four of them are: E4 (A), E5 (B), E6 (C) and E7 (D).
. Lao Tzu said: Make “Many words Few (TO$q)!”. My search started at age 9. I am 75 now. In all of these years, I managed to appreciate Mr.B’s twelve terms better.
. But let us get back to Neiye 1.2. That’s where we started from.
October 17, 2010
. The question came up October 11 when I commented on my translation of Neiye 1. More specifically, the question was about the “Negative(_-)” – “Positive(_+)” “DyAd(dyad)” at Neiye 1.2. What does that dyad mean there? …
. A general answer came to me this morning at about 5 AM. As usual, the problem is now, getting the idea across to you. What I have to do is to get the idea across to a communicator (C), whose job it is to communicate ideas. Of course, a communicator must understand what is to be communicated first.
. What I will say next will be hard to chew; whether it is impossible to understand, is for you to decide. Fellow thinkers (B) will probably find, what I am dishing out here, delicious. “WordErs(C2er)”, people who specialize in “Words(C2)”, will necessarily find it hard to digest but if they want to do their dharma they have to make that effort.
. Trying to describe, what I have learned from Lao Tzu over the past 40 years, in one section will be demanding, but not impossible. I will describe the line of thought that led me to it. I will make “Many words Few (TO$q)” by cutting out the ideas that are not directly related to the question. I will describe HOW I arrived at the partial answer to my question.
. The first “DyAd(dyad)” in the Tao Te Ching is “Actual – Potential (A1pt)”. Each of the first three paragraphs of Ching 1 is also a “DyAd” Ching 1.1 is the General – Particular dyad. The “Big(TA)”, or “All Tao (1aA1)” is the general case and “Name(Mg)” is a particular example of it. The next two examples are both the Nonexistence – Existence dyad. The two paragraphs have different words in them but they are the same dyad. They are not identical but they are analogous.
. At 1.4,1 (chapter 1, paragraph 4, sentence 1) Lao Tzu says: “These DyAds are Units Originally (Tzdyad$1Cu)”. Then Ching 2 starts with: “Heaven Below (Tn_-)”. That is a reference to the Law of Correspondence: As above so below. It means that the dyads he is going to talk about next are analogous to the dyads he has already talked about.
. First comes the “Beauty(%b)” – “Ugliness(ug)” dyad and then the “Good(gd)” – “No Good (PUgd)” dyad. Next comes the “Then(KU)”, which is a syntactic (C) message that a new paragraph starts here. But here we get six more “DyAds”. However, here the “Two Produces the Three (_2Sg_3)”, the “DyAd” becomes a “TriAd(_3ad)”. It is here that Lao Tzu becomes hard to follow without J. G. Bennett’s systematics.
. Ching 2.2: “Existence and Nonexistence Mutually Produce (YUWUmtSg) life. Difficult and Easy necessitate a task to be Completed (dfezmtcm). Long and Short (lg*a) ….High and its Negative-opposite (#h_-) .... Melody and Rhythm (#a#b) …. Before and After Mutually produce Sequence (#c60mt#e) ThereFore (SiYI) ….”
. The “TriAd” that came to my attention this morning is at 2.2,2 (Ching chapter 2, paragraph 2, sentence 2). How come? …
Because I was talking about Ching 63.2,1 on October 15: “All (Tn_-) Difficult Tasks Necessarily Arise From Easy (dfD2PI%ctoez)” ones. Ching 2.2,2 sheds light on Ching 63.2 and 63.3. This will have to do for now.
===========================================================
October 11, 2010
. In the October 10 section, the “it” in front of line b and the quotes in front of line d should be taken out. The “it” breaks up the first sentence, which is also the first paragraph. What is said there is that “The essence of all things brings them to life.” The “S” in line c should be Sg. Shêng(Sg) means, to bring about, to “Generate” and “Life”.
. Near the end of that October 10 section I said: “The vision (A), thought (B), word (C) and deed (D) sequence is harder to see …. but with a bit of practice it can be seen.” That is not true. The sequence is not clear to me even now.
. These mistakes happen because I am trying to bite off more than I can chew. One reason I take on these challenges is because I want to get a “WordEr(C2er)” interested in this amazing poetry (A). Lao Tzu said at Ching 63.3: “ThereFore (SiYI) Intelligent People (wsmn) Throughout-their-life(nG) Don’t Take-on (PUdo) tasks which are too Big(TA) for them, and Therefore(KU) they are Able to Complete The Big (abcm_HTA)” tasks. But “Intelligent People” (B) can’t “Complete The Big” jobs all by themselves. You can see right here in this blog that I can’t “Complete This (cm_H)” job without a communicator (C) helping me or without me doing what they should be doing as best as I can. But even if thinkers (B) and “TalkErs(C2er)” team up, they still need the doers (D) to “Complete(cm)” the job. Did Lao Tzu, then, make a mistake? …
No. Lao Tzu is describing the DIVISION OF LABOR just as Plato did. Without that understanding, Ching 63.3 doesn’t make sense.
. Now let us look at Neiye 1 again and try to “identify the four monads”. Identifying the monad is a basic operation in systematics.
. Our essence (A) gives us life. So far so good. That takes care of the first paragraph. What about the second one? ...
1c”Below (itself, the Purusha) Generates the Five Grains (_-Sg_5*a)”. The grains are the seeds which are sown by A and “Conceived(B1)” by B.
1d: “Above (itself, the Purusha) Becomes the consolidated Stars (_+do*b*c).”
. I have gone over what must be above the Purusha (E1-E2-E3) before in this blog but what is below it is more accessible for us.
. So what are “the Five Grains”? …
For that we can consult THE HOLY SCIENCE. Sutra 8 is translated as follows: “They (the five aura electricities ) constitute the causal body of Purusha. (Page 28)”
. There is a disclaimer on the bottom of this page: “OPPOSITE PAGE: This diagram …. only shows the progression of development of various aspects of creation, and does not purport to illustrate their spatial relationship to one another.”
. Let us assume that what is on top of the diagram came first and what is on the bottom came last. On top is the Sat-Chit-Ananda triad. Below that is the Purusha and other things. Below that are Buddhi (B) and Manas (C). Below that are the five PANCHA TATTWA. That is called the CAUSAL BODY. Below that is the Sattwa-Rajeas-Tamas triad Below that are the Jnanendriyas, the Karmendriyas and the Tanmatras (the objects of sense). That is called the ASTRAL BODY. And below that is the PHYSICAL BODY (D). There are many more pages of details, but you have to read them yourself. The point is that if the Chinese and the Hindu poets are talking about the same “Five” things, and if what they tell us is true, then WHAT the poets say in Sanskrit and in Chinese must be the same. Here is a quote of Gita 4.16 by Winthrop Sargeant and his footnote on that verse:
“’What is action? What is non-action?’ thus Even the poets* ….
* KAVAYAS, poets. One must remember that much of Sanskrit religious literature was conceived in poetic form. Thus ‘poets’ …. Wrote, or rather sang, in verse.”
. Why did Krishna say “Even the poets”? …
The poets are on level A while the Brahmins are on level B. If the Brahmins were the highest in the Atma (A), Buddhi (B), Manas (C) and Inrdiyas (D) hierarchy then Krishna would have said; Even the Brahmins. And there are more contradictions like that in the Gita. How could the Brahmins (B) get away with such blatant distortions of the truth? …
Social engineering was not invented yesterday.
. I don’t know it all. The reason I am biting off a bit more than I can chew is because the theories thinkers (B) put out on the internet have to be tested anyway, but, more importantly, I am trying to get just one communicator (B) to see what is in this amazing poetry, that it is the “Truth(A1)” which when known will set us free. Let me conclude this section with a very important question: What are the social engineers doing to the “WordErs that they Don't Understand (C2erPUkn)” that? ...
=========================================================
October 10, 2010
. There are more “Insights(72)” to describe but I am not a writer. What I am trying to accomplish with this blog is to reach one writer who is willing and able to do the writing for us. The best I can do is, work on the Ching and the Neiye. Even though there is a lot of syntactic (C) work involved, I can’t do my own dharma without a “WordEr(C2er)” doing this work for me or without doing it myself. Either Way, I can’t go wrong by working on the best. Neiye 1 is only 8 lines long with 4 characters per line. So let’s work on it.
1a: The “”Essence (#S)” “Of(_Z)” All Things (1awU_Z#S))
1b: is what brings them to(Tz18do) Life (Tz18doSg).”
1c: “Below it Generates the Five Gains (_-Sg_5*a)
1d: Above it Becomes the Consolidated Stars (_+do*b*c).”
1e: When “Flowing “Between(@i)” Heaven and Earth (*dTnTI@i)
1f: Call It Ghostly or Numinous (is_Z*d$c).”
1g: When “Stored In the Intellectual Center (1gto*e_=)
1h: Call It Wisdom in man (is_Zwsmn).”
1a = Fan16: “All, human, usual, the world, generally”. It is in 1, 3, 5, 8, 17, 21 22 23 and 25. I have typed out two-digit identifiers for all characters I could recognize on sight. This already comes in handy. For instance In 3 and 8 Fan(1a) is in front of Hsin(Hs), in 6 and 17 it is in front of Tao(A1) and in 21, 22 and 25 it is in front of “Man(mn)”. As I said before, if you know one word better then you understand the sentence it is in better, if you understand a sentence better then you understand the paragraph it is in better and … .
It is not just better for you to complete the sentence yourself but for “Man(mn)”kind. The “Wisdom of Men (wsmn)” is in the Akashic, or morphogenetic Field. And the truth you find goes in there and effects all of “Man”kind, whether they can still think or whether they are dumbed down so that they can’t think anymore. The truth or falsrhods, which are in the collective unconscious, are picked up by people without thinking. Once there is more truth than falsehood in the morphogenetic field, social engineering will not work any more. In other words, the truth will set us free.
. *a = Ku115: “Grain, cereal; real”. The work I am doing here for the “WordErs(C2er)” is not my dharma, but notice how useful this work is. The grain we have here could be the “Root($6)” we have at 6j and in the Ching as well.
. *b = Lieh18: “To arrange in order, rank”. This is work that is done in the semantic dimension (B). So doing this work with Automatic Energy (E6) in the syntactic dimension (C) automatically tells us which level we are on. No thinking ( B) required.
. *c = Hsing72: “Star”.*d = Kuei194. It is in the Cing, but only in chapter 60. That’s why we don’t have an identifier for it.The same goes for 1g. It is at Ching 44 and it is also at 4N. This is why I am identifying it as 1g. It = Ts’ang140.
. *e = Hsiung130. Not in the Ching. “Thorax, breast; feelings, affections”. Followed by Chung(_=), it means “in the mind or breast”.My bigger Hong Kong dictionary has “…. The mind; the intelligence (5162).” The left component is the radical. One of the right components is in the Ching. It is Hsiung(Üc). It is in 16, 30 and 31. Well, there is some syntactic (C) work for us to do.
. Ching 16: If you “Don’t Know the Constant (PUknCn) One runs blindly into disasters (*d%cÜc J.Wu)” *d = Wang38.
30: “After a great war, bad [Üc] years invariably follow (J.Wu)”. That brings Ching 38 to mind because only two days ago we were looking for “Flower(__)”. It turned out to be “Tao’S Flower (A1_Z*a) And Folly’S Conception (btÜx_ZB1”. I wanted to take a closer look at “Folly(Üx) but my plate was already too full. Now another reason to look at it came up. Yü(Üx): “Silly, stupid; to befool”. It is in 20 38 65. At Ching 20 Lao Tzu calls himself a “Fool(Üx)”. So being a fool in the eyes of the world is not necessarily a bad thing. At 38 we are told that “Tao’S Flower” is the beginning or “conception of foolishness”.
. At 65 we are told that the people have to be “Dumbed-down((Üx)” Why? …
Because they are too “Hard to Govern (df85)”. Why? …
Because They Know Too-much (YI_H^cTO). Therefore, he who governs his state with cleverness is its malefactor; but he who governs his state without resorting to cleverness is its benefactor (J.Wu).”
.. The vision (A), Thought (B), word(C) and deed(D) sequence is harder to see in this chapter as it is in Ching 25, but with a bit of practice it can be seen.
. Gurdjieff calls our “essence” (A) the observer and the intellectual (B), emotional (C) and moving (D) centers are the observable. Semiotics is the B-C-D “TriAd(_3ad)” Now, which part of us can keep these three parts in “Order(85)”? …
Our intellect? …
No, if the intellect takes control we have the timocracy we have here and which the CIA is trying so hard to re-establish in Venezuela. If an elected politician, like Hugo Chavez takes over absolute power he will act as any other dictator because power corrupts. And Linda McQuaig and Michael Moore told us what happens when the profit motive (D) takes over. The subtlest type of government is the one we have. This is why in chapter 17 it is the worst of the four. This is why Lao Tzu said at Ching 65 that “he who governs his state with cleverness[^c] is its malefactor”.And again at Ching 10 Lao Tzu asks the ruler: When you “Govern your State (8531) are you Able to do it Without Knowledge (abWUkn) ?(HU)”
. The Neiye and the Ching have been around for over 2300 years but if we don’t follow up from there they are of no use to us.
========================================================
October 9, 2010
. If you work on this amazing Chinese poetry (A), this poetry somehow works on you. A good example of this are the new “Insights(72)” which came to me this morning, as I went over the printout of the section I put out yesterday. Some of the omissions are so obvious to me now that they could be called mistakes. But yesterday I did the best I could. Let me just give you one exmple of what I mean.
. After I found “Concept(B1)” in Ching 32, I translated the sentence the word was in as follows: “Concepts Regulate the “Names(Mg)” we Have (B2âxYUMg)” for them. Yesterday I was trying to find out more about Neiye 6, lines j and k, because I remembered that “Flower(*38)” is in the Ching. Since assuming that Lao Tzu is commenting on the Neiye is a useful thing to assume, I did the work I did yesterday. So I was looking for the English equivalents of the four characters in lines l and k. We already knew that they are the parts of the “All Tao (1aA1)” The next thing we want to know is whether the sequence in which they are given is accurate. In other words, does the sequence we get in Neiye 6.3 correspond to the sequence we get in Ching 25.3. Notice that the “Naming(Mg)” (C) is done at step three while the “Identifying(Mg)” (B) is done at step two. The work which is done in the syntactic dimension of semiotics (B) is not more important than the work which is done in the syntactic dimension (C), and neither one of these two is more im portent than the pragmatic dimension (D). The three dimensions of semiotics are autonomous wholes and interdependent parts of a larger whole. The larger whole is semiotics and its pats are semantics (B), syntactics (C) and pragmatics (D). Semiotics, the B-C-D triad, is a whole, which has three parts.
. The tetrad is a whole, which has four parts. The sequence in which the parts appear can be seen best at Ching 25. The first paragraph is the longest one. It is the overall vision (A). It is about the big Tao. There Lao Tzu says: “…. I Don’t Know Its Name (my PUkn_HMg). The character we have for it is Tao (Zi_Z73A1) if Forced To give It another Name I-would-call-it Big (57do_ZMg73TA).
. “If we let big mean, being at home, having been at home mean, going out (TA73*e) Having-gone Mean Arriving (*e73$t) Having-arrived Mean Returng ($t73$l) Then(KU)” having returned means being back home again.
. The translation of Yüeh(73) is tricky because here it wouldn’t even be quite correct in the syntactic dimension of semiotics. But the sequence of the four parts of the tetrad is clear: The first part is the vision (A) and the following three parts are the thought, word and deed (B-C-D) “TriAd(_3ad)”.
. What, then, is the most meaningful Way to translate the sentence at Ching 32? …
“Concepts regulate the sequence of the names we have for them.” This seems obvious to me now, but yesterday I couldn’t see it. If I would have seen it yesterday then I would have said it yesterday.
. There is another important lesson in this: At any point in our lives, we do the best we can do. And, if we learn more, then we can do better. But, due to the work the social engineers are doing on us, we don’t learn more of the truth because they know how to dumb us down. This is why it is important to work on this amazing poetry because it takes us to where our political masters can’t reach us.
=======================================================
October 8, 2010
. In the October 6 section I said: The “All Tao ….
is Without Root, Without Trunk (WU__WU__)”
k; “Without Leaves and Without Flowers (WU__WU__)”
. For four words in this sentence I have not bothered to give you their phonetics and radical numbers. Why? …
Because it takes time and energy to look them up and Roth’s equivalents are good “Enough(Zu)” for the context the words are in. I said there: “Here we are told that the ‘All Tao’ is undivided”. We are further told that there are four parts in the “All Tao”.
. What is true of the “TriAd( _3ad) is also true of the tetrad. The Law of Correspondence applies to all N-Term systems. The tetrad is a four-term system. The parts of the tetrad are “ImPossible (PUpt) to Fully Examine ($0*a) Because these parts are Undifferentiated And Act as One (KU#Obtdo_1)” unit.
. Still, not having the phonetics and radicals for these four parts is unsatisfactory. So, this morning around 4 AM I remembered that “Flower” is in the Ching. It is not in Capters 1, 3, 11, 40, 48, 63, 70 or 71 because I know them well “Enoug” but what about the rest of the chapters? There are 81 chapters in the Ching. Unless I also remember what context the word is in, I might as well look it up in the dictionary. The word is the “Flower” of the Tao. “Of(_Z)” and Tao(A1) are in so many chapters, I might as well look up the word in my dictionary. What else do I remember? It is the “Conception(B1)” of folly. How is that for memory? …
. Actually what I have called memory (C) here is actually thinking (B). Thinkers can re-think ideas from scratch and that thinking can be mistaken for memory. “KnowErs are Not good with Words (knerPUC2)”. They are not good with remembering them. “WordErs(C2er), on the other hand, are good with words but they Don’t necessarily Know (PUkn)” what they mean in context.
. Anyway, Shih(B1) is getting us somewhere. It is in chapters 1, 14, 32, 38, 52 and 64. Finding it there is less work than finding it in the dictionary. As I already said, it is not in Ching 1. There Shih is “Heaven and Earth’S Conception (TnTI_ZB1).
. At 14 we are told that the “Ability to Know the Ancient Concepts (abkn30B1) Is Called Tao Lineage (SiisA1*f)”. *f = Chi120. The dictionary equivalents are: “To arrange, record, narrate; annals”. “Lineage” comes from Star’s dictionary-concordance.
. At 32 we have “Concepts Regulate the “Names(Mg)” we Have (B2âxYUMg)” for them. Still no “Flower(__)” but look at all the nice things we have learned. Notice that “Name(Mg)” is not in the same sequence in the translation as it is in the Chinese original. This is a convention that helps me to get around that problem.
. At 38 J.Wu has: “As to foreknowledge, it is only the flower of Tao, And the beginning of folly.” It is “Tao’S Flower (A1_Z*a) And Folly’S Conception.” *a = Hua140: “Flower” or “blossoms”. But Hua(*38) is not the same character we have at 6k. Now what? …
After all this work I end up looking up the character at 6k in the dictionary. On top of it are two fires besides each other. “Fire(86)” is a simple and most simples are also radicals. Let’s start looking for our character under Rad. 86: Our character isn’t there, but look at Ying86. It means “Brilliant” Its picture is the two fires on top and a “Cover(14)” beneath them. Even though the two “Fires” on top and the “Cover” beneath them are components of our character neither Rad. 86 nor 14 are its radical. The bottom component is a “Tree(75)”. Let us, then, look for our character under Rad. 75. There are about 300 entries under this radical. Lots of work, but here it is: Jung(75): “Glory, honour, splendid”. Still no “Flower(__)”. Now what? …
Now we have to look at the other three characters as well, to figure out what is going on. The one we did is one down, three to go: Rad. 140 probably applies to two of them because it has to do with plants: Ching(140): “Culm of grass, stalk”. So that’s the “trunk”. Yeh(140): “Leaf”. Right, “Leaf” is “leaf”. Three down, one to go: Ken(75): “Root, foundation, origin”. Just looking at Ken(75), with a bit of experience, you can see that the left component, the “Tree(75)” is the most likely radical for this character. Getting the phonetics, the radical number and the English equivalents for the last three characters didn’t take very long, but if you don’t see a good reason for knowing these things why invest time and energy to get these details? Roth has done a good job as far as chapter 6 goes. If I had not remembered this morning that “Flower(*37)” is in the Ching, Roth’s equivalents would have been good “Enough(Zu)”. The message is still that the parts of the “All Tao” are “Undifferentiated(#O)”, that they “Act as One (do_1)” unit. But what do we know now that we didn’t know before? ...
Let us see if Ken(75) is in the Ching.
. Yes it is: Kên($6) and Star tells us that other translators have translated it as: ”Root, origin, cause, foundation”, and most of it, the dictionary gives us as well. The concordance tells us that the character is in 06, 16, 26 and 59.
. Ching 6: The “Valey Spirit (kU$c) …. Is Called (Siis) Heaven Earth Root (TnTI$6)
. 16: “All Things (WnwU) are stirring together (*b%c) I sit and watch their return (meYIKnFU) For flourishing as they do, Each of tem will return to its root (hewU*c*cPUFU77_H$6 J.Wu) and Returning to your Roots is Causing-you-to-be Tranquil (77$673^a). This(Si) tranquility Is(is) causing you to Fulfill your Destiny (FUäG) doing your dharma (FUäG) is Understanding-and-living-according-to the Constant (73Cn) laws of nature. Knowing the Constant (knCn) is increasing the possibility of synchronicity happening more often in your life (72)”.
*a = Tu118. *b = Ping1: “together / in unison / united …. (Star)”. *c = Yün140. There is more good stuff in this chapter to quote. Most of it is about right physical action (D) then comes the “King(_E)” (C), then comes “Heaven(Tn)” (B) and then comes ...
the Tao(A1 (A)), but we have to stick to “Roots”.
. 26: “Heaviness Is of Lightness the Root ($kdo$ü$6)
. . . . . Tranquility Is of Restlessness the Master (^adoâd#u)”. This brings 70 to mind:
“Words Have an Ancetor (C2YU@4)
. Deeds Have a Master (D1YU#u)”. Three down one to go:
. 59: That of which “Nobody Knows The Limit (MOkn_H%l) Can Mean (ptYI) …. Having the Kingdom’S Mother (YU31_ZMU) which Can be the Means (ptYI) to be deep-rooted [$6] and firm-planted in the Tao (J.Wu)”.
. At Neiye 12, that of which “Nobody Knows The Limit” is the “Spirit($c) of which Nobody Knows the Limits (MOkn%l)”.
. Please notice how Lao Tzu sheds light on the Neiye. Passages like this, show that Roth is probably right in claiming that Lao Tzu has known the Neiye. This is why he can express some things more clearly, or shed light on them. But the work required to make more use of this ancient wisdom is too much for one person.
. I can see how a single chapter of the Ching or the Neiye could be expanded into a book. But this takes a “WordEr(C2er)” and a “KnowEr(knEr)” working on it together. At Ching 56 Lao Tzu tells them “Unite Your Dust ($1_H@h) This Is(Siis) how you form a Mystical Unit (Sü$1)”
. It is a “Mystical Unit” because when thinkers (B) and communicators (C) unite they form a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. Our politicians (C) and their unelected advisors (B) are doing it, so why can’t we? …
Put yourself into their shoes …
Would you want the people to find out what you are doing? …
Would you want the people to find out why you are getting away with fooling them time and again? …
. Lao Tzu said “WordErs Don’t Understand (C2erPUkn)” this. I hope that, just this once, he is wrong.
====================================================
October 7, 2010
. The work I did on Neiye 6 yesterday brought Ching 14 to mind. Here is its first paragraph: You
“Look for It but Can’t See (#M_ZPUoo) it. it can be
Identified As-something Invisible (Mg73#N). you
Listen for It but Can’t Hear (@H_ZPU^d) it. it can be
Identified As-something Inaudible (Mg73^e). you
Reach for It but Can’t Get (@I_ZPUgt) it. it can be
Identified As-something Intangible (Mg73$h). the parts of
This TriAd (Tz_3ad) are ImPossible (PUpt) to Fully Examine ($0*a)
Because these parts are Undifferentiated And Act as One (KU#Obtdo_1) unit.
. *a = Chieh149 (6062) “To investigate. To keep in order or restrain ….to examine.”
Notice that Shih(#M), T’ing(@H and Yüeh(73) are also in Neiye 6. Harold D. Roth has given a convincing argument that the Neiye is older than the Ching because Lao Tzu must have known it. In fact, assuming that Lao Tzu has commented on passages and whole chapters of the Neiye is quite useful.
At 0b (Neiye chapter 10 line b) we are told that “Words Come-out From the Mouth (C2Cuto@l)”. K’ou(@l) is at Ching 12 and 35. At 35 Lao Tzu tells us that when
“Tao’S words Come-out of the Mouth (A1_ZCu@l) they are Tasteless(âa)”. So at 6b, we have the “Mouth(@l)” again, and it is “UnAble to Speak (PUabC2)” of the “All Tao (1aA1)”.
‘ At Neiye 6.1 (chapter 6 paragraph 1) we get the following story: “As of the Way” (A). Then comes the “Mouth” (D) out of which come “Words” (C), which the “Eyes” cant “See”. And even if they are written down, so that the eyes can see them, they still can’t understand them. Next, on line d, we get the “Ear” and, even though they can hear the spoken “Words”, they can’t understand them either.
. Confusing? Don’t worry. Lao Tzu will straighten it all out for us. So on line e we are back to the Tao again. We have come full cycle but the path we have taken from A to A was a bit crocked. We had a similar thing happening with Ching 71 where the older Ma-wang-tui text was a bit confusing and then the later standard text got it straightened out.
. Let us now look at Ching 14.1 again:
. After the “All Tao” has told the divided Tao on level A what it wants, A tells B what it wants, B tells C what it wants C tells D what to do and D gives the supply of A’s demand back to A. At Ching 14.1 we first have the looking, then the listening (C (which is one half of the communication process (Communicators can’t communicate what they don’t understand))) and then comes the physical grasping (D).
. And then Lao Tzu tells us that B-C-D is a “TriAd(_3ad)” and that the members in this triad “Work together as One (do_1)” team. And the “WordErs (C2er), who are the connective in this triad, Don’t Know (PUkn)” that.
. What I have squeezed here on one page might take a whole book to explain properly, but I can’t do that. “KnowErs are Not good with Words (knerPUC2)”.
. What is it that “WordErs Don’t Know (C2erPUkn)? …
That we need the division of labour. As thinkers (B) have to leave the writing to the writers so the writers (C) should leave the thinking to the thinkers. But those who have the talent for writing are not taught that in university. They are not supposed to ask why. Why? …
===============================================================
October 6, 2010
. The work on the Neiye concordance is exhausting for me. So I am looking for an excuse for getting away from it for a while. That excuse came at the last line of chapter 6.
6n: “Command(äG) by It( Z) Yüeh(73) Tao(A1)” The chapter can be divided into four paragraphs: 6a to 6e, 6f to 6i, 6j to 6k and 6l to 6n. The last paragraph is the conclusion of this chapter. 6n is challenging. The dictionary equivalents of Ming(äG) is “To command; decree; life, fate”. The context, here, as well as in Ching 51, demands the primary meaning but the other meanings are all implied.
. Yüeh(73) appears here for the first time. In the syntactic dimension of semiotics (C) any equivalent of this character is valid. But in the semantic dimension (B) the equivalents have to make sense. In front of file #5 you have my dictionary concordance, so you can get the details from there.
. The tetrad is also referred to for the first time here, but the A-B-C “TriAd( 3ad)” is already referred to at 3a: “All of Hsin’S Forms (1aHs Z@k)” refers to the A-B-C triad. Similarly, the “All Tao (1aA1)” refers to the A-B-C-D tetrad. If you don’t know these things then you can’t “Get(gt)” it. If you don’t know what a word or a phrase in a sentence means then you can’t fully understand the sentence. So here is:
. . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . Nei-yeh 6.
a: “As for the Way (A1Yeer Roth)” The Tao(A1) is at A of Plato’s “Line (509d)”.
. . .As for the
b: “Mouth, It is that Which is UnAble to Speak (@l_ZSOPUabC2) of it Yeh(Ye)”.
. . As for the
c: “Eyes, they are that Which are UnAble to See (*a_ZSOPUab#M) it Yeh(Ye)”.
. . As for the
d: “Ears, they are that Which are UnAble to Hear (*b_ZSOPUab@H) it Yeh(Ye)”.
. . As for the Tao again, it is
e: “That By which people Cultivate their Hsin And Align their Bodies Yeh (SOYI__Hsbt%8@kYe)”.
. *a = Mu109. *b = Erh128. Both characters are in Ching 12 but, since they are in only one chapter, we don’t have the two-digit identifiers for them. Notice also the “__” in line e. It is a character on which I am not going to invest more time and energy to find its phonetic and radical number. I am going to wait for somebody to tell me. And Roth’s equivalent makes good sense.
. In this paragraph the tetrad is referred to. We start at A and return to A. We know this from computer programming. The customer (A) gets the job going. The demand comes from there and the supply, the program (C) or the computer output (D) is returned to the customer. How come the ancient poets knew that? They didn’t have computers in those days. So HOW did they know? …
Well, they just did.
f: As for “People if they lose it then they die (mn_ZSO37YI78)”;
g: “and if they get it then they live Yeh (SOgtYISgYe)”.
h: As for “Business if it loses it then it fails (D2_ZSO37YIäL)”;
i: “and if it gets it then it prospers Yeh (SOgtYIcmYe”.
. This paragraph has been translated the usual way. Not every sentence works well with my character by character type of translation. After all, Chinese isn’t English. The advantage of my word for word style is that you get to know the characters better in this way. But HOW things are said is not as important in the semantic dimension (B) as it is the syntactic dimension (C). Thinkers (B) are more interested in WHAT is said than in HOW it is said.
j: As for the “All Tao [This is Lao Tzu’s “Big(TA)” Tao(A1)], it is
. . Without Root, Without Trunk (WU__WU__)”,
k; “Without Leaves and Without Flowers (WU__WU__)”.
. Here we are told that the “All Tao” is undivided, just as Lao Tzu’s “Big Tao” is.
l: “All Things By it are Created (WnwUYISg)”,
m: “All Things By it will be Completed (WnwUYIcm)” if the
n: “Commands from It are Carried-out-by-the-four-divided Taos (äG_Z73A1)”.
As I said before, In the syntactic dimension of semiotics (C) any equivalents for Yüeh(73) are valid but in the semantic dimension (B) they have to make sense. How do you know whether my interpretations of Neiye 6 are valid? …
The whole emerges through its parts and, having emerged, gives meaning to them. This is as true of the words in a sentence as it is of the sentences in a paragraph and of the paragraphs in a chapter.
. The Law of Correspondence is universal. As words are to sentences, so sentences are to paragraphs, and as sentences are to paragraphs so paragraphs are to chapters. On each level we have the whole-part “DyAd(dyad)”.
. These universal Laws seem to have to do with the content of Ervin Laszlo’s Akashic Field. They seem to be the “in-formation” in this field. According to Sutra 14 of The Holy Science, “Purusha” is in our “Heart” (A), our heart is in the intellect (B (Buddhi, in Sanskrit)), the intellect is in the mind (C (Manas)) and the mind is in our body (D) as the body is in the world. If this is too much for you to chew, forget about it.
. Lao Tzu says: Don’t bite off more than you can chew. If you don’t know what the words in a sentence mean, don’t try to understand the sentence. Work on the missing words. If you don’t know all the sentences in a paragraph, don’t try to understand the paragraph. Work on the missing sentences. And if you don’t understand all the paragraphs in a chapter, don’t try to understand the chapter. Work on the missing paragraphs and when you understand all of the parts, the whole will emerge through its parts all by itself.
. So, by working on the parts, you “Assist(1E)” the whole with emerging. “Intelligent People (wsmn) Throughout-their-lives(nG) Don’t Handle (PUdo) tasks which are too Big (TA)” for them and Thus(KU) they are Able to Complete The Big (abcm_HTA)” ones.
. To evaluate my interpretation of Neiye 6 you can study other chapters in which the tetrad is described. The “Words(C2)” used will be different but their content is “Always(Cn)” the same tetrad. That is what will “Gradually(1F)” emerge through these chapters. Not just any chapters, but the tetrad will emerge through chapters in which the tetrad is the content.
. I can’t do your thinking for you, not even Lao Tzu can do that. But somehow he does help his students. If you work on this amazing poetry, somehow it will work on you.
=====================================================
October 3, 2010
. Linda McQuaig has described capitalism, Plato’s oligarchy (on level D of his “Divided Line (509d)”), better than Plato has. But the government she is defending is not a democracy (A), it is a timocracy, which is on level B of the “Line”.
. Plato has described four “Imperfect Societies” in his Republic. Letters A, B, C and D refer to the four divisions of his “Divided Line”. In these governments
Capitalists (D) are FOR the capitalists,
A dictator (C) is FOR himself,
Timocrats (B) are FOR the timocrats and
the people (A (demos, in Greek)) are FOR the people.
. It is true that the first three, D, C and B are “Imperfect Societies” but democracy (A) is not. Later philosophers have seen that democracy comes closer to Plato’s ideal society than to what he has said about democracy.
. So Plato has made a mistake. But that doesn’t mean that his “Divided Line” is wrong. It only means that his interpretation of it was inaccurate.
. Democracy (A), “Hypocracy(TA*18)” (B), dictatorship (C) and capitalism (D) correspond to the four divisions of the “Divided Line”. These are the same divisions we have in the Aristotelian tetrad.
, The fact that, none of the three “Imperfect Societies” is FOR the people, explains their inefficiency, incompetence, corruption and the lies politicians tell the people.
. In the previous sections I have talked about Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. A good example if this dishonesty are the lies, mentiras, he tells the people. The rulers in an imperfect government have to lie to the people. Why? …
Can they tell the people that their type of government is intended to serve only the rulers in it. Can they tell the people that their government is not FOR the people? …
“Each type of government enacts laws that are in its own interest (338e)”. Can a dictator, a timocrat or a capitalist tell the people what Plato has said here in his Republic? …
To tell the people the truth is not “in the interest of themselves, the rulers (338e)”.
. In the present Venezuelan educational system the students are indoctrinated differently than we are indoctrinated and informed by our rulers. By comparing these two different doctrines we can “Find-out the Truth (doA1)”. For instance, Ching 71 got me going on the Tao Te Ching because I have compared different translations of it.
. Now, will a communicator please say this better? …
========================================================
October 1, 2010
. Somebody, who probably doesn’t like what I am saying, is preventing me from getting out my message. In the September 28 section I said: “Knowledge of the truth in the heads of the people is more important than guns in their hands.”
. This doesn’t mean that guns (D) are not important but knowledge of the truth is more important. Why? …
Because, if the people don’t know what democracy is, they can’t establish it. If the people know what dictatorship is and if they have “Enough” guns then they can prevent a dictator from taking over. It will lead to a terrible bloodbath but not to democracy. But if the people have “Enough” guns and “Enough” knowledge of political science, then they can talk sense to Chavez and establish a participatory democracy.
. If you tell Chavez that the US army is just waiting next door to liberate the country. Perhaps he will listen. They are going to wait till after the bloodbath. Timing very important to the CIA. And what are they going to liberate the country from? …
From Chavez’s dictatorship? No, if the people have “Enough” guns and part of the army is FOR the people then the people will already have accomplished that. So what type of government is the CIA going to “liberate” the country from? …
What type of government are they going to install again in Venezuela? …
As I said before: The CIA is more afraid of democracy (A) than of dictatorship (C). The type of government Bush $ Co. is establishing all over the world is what Plato has called a timocracy (B). This is what Lao Tzu calls an “Intelligent Man’S Government (wsmn Z85)”. Now who would be the kind of people who don’t want me to get this message out? …
September 30, 2010
. On page 12 of his SCIENCE and the AKASHIC FIELD Ervin Laszlo says: It “is enough to identify the basic constituents of a system and give the rules ---the algorithms --- that govern their behaviour. (This is the basis of all computer simulations; the modelers tell the computer what to do at each step as the modelling process unfolds, and the computer does the rest.)”
. Because this “modelling process” is central to Laszlo’s integral Theory Of Everything (TOE).let us take a closer look at this process: There are four steps in it and “each step” is clearly defined by Plato, his student, Aristotle, the Chinese poets and it was working in the original IBM computer programming system.
. Step 1 is level A on Plato’s “Divided Line (at 509d of Plato’s Republic)”. It is the Aristotelian “final cause”. In the original IBM computer programming system, it is the “job-description”. In the Tao Te Ching and the Nei Yeh it is the (separated) Tao(A1).
. Step 2 is level B. It is the “formal cause”. In programming it is the “job-analysis”. In the Ching and the Neiye it is “Heaven(Tn)”.
. Step 3 is level C. It is the “efficient cause”. In programming it is the “coding”. The Chinese poets call it “Humanity(%5)”, “King( E)” or “Man(mn)”kind.
. Step 4 is level D. It is the “material cause”. In programming it is the “execution” of the coder’s program. In Chinese, as in astrology, it is “Earth(TI)”.
. Here, then, we have “identify[ed] the basic constituents”, or “sources”, of the tetrad. How does it work in the original IBM computer programming system? …
The customer (A) is the most creative member of the team, if s/he is doing what? …
If s/he “Aligns(%8)” himself with what? …
The answer to this question is in previous sections of this blog. But it would be better for you if you can find out the answer for yourself. …
For my answer I have used two sources: J.G. Bennett’s ENERGIES and the Ching. “Alignment(%5)” is in chapters 08, 45, 57, 58 and 78. There is more information on it in the Neiye but to work on it properly, we need a concordance for it. So what must customers (A), thinkers (B), communicators (C) and pragmatists (D) do to make the system work? …
Each member of the team must “Align(%8)” itself with the level above its own. D must align itself with C, C with B, B with A and A with Creative Energy (E3). Creative Energy is above Conscious Energy (E4 (A)). It is above of our 4-fold human system. So the customer must “Align” itself with a centre which is above D, C, B and A.
. By using letters A, B, C and D (in brackets), I am using Desmond Lee’s convention of interpreting Plato’s Republic.
. Level A is the initiating impulse of the A-B-C “triad( 3ad)”. Level D is the pragmatic dimension of semiotics. It is the outcome in the B-C-D “Triad”. The unnumbered line at chapter 11 refers to this “TriAd”: “Heaven, Humanity Earth (Tn%5TI)” Heaven(Tn), “Humanity(%5) and “Earth(TI)” form the B-C-D “TriAd”.
. The communicators (C) are in the syntactic dimension. They are the connective in this triad. They tell the doers (D) what to do. By means of our physical body (D (E7)) we can bring about changes in the outer world (E8). Our body is part of us, the subject, the outer world is not us. It is the object.
. In the Tao Te Ching and the Nei Yeh Hsin(Hs) refers to the A-B-C “TriAd( 3ad)”. Its dictionary equivalents are: “Heart, mind; center”. The heart is on level A, the mind is on level C and the head (B) is in the “Center(Hs)” between them. It is the connective in the A-B-C triad. Semiotics is the B-C-D triad. In the Ching and the Neiye it is referred to by: “Heaven Below (Tn -)”. “Heaven(Tn)” is on level B and humanity and earth (C and D) are “Below( -)” it. Perhaps we have trouble understanding what these ancient poets have said because we don’t give them credit for they knew so long ago. If we believe that they can’t know these things then they can't teach us what they know. “Knowing that you Don't Know is Healthy (knPUkn +)” because then you are open to it.To the extent that you give Lao Tzu credit for his wisdom, to that extent he can convey some of it to you. The same is true of the Neiye.
. There are many details in the Neiye which at this point I can only guess at. I can’t work as well on the Neiye as I can work on the Ching because I don’t have the kind of work on it which Jonathan Star has done for the Ching.
. Producing a concordance for it is hard, inefficient and frustrating work for me because I am not a “WordEr (C2er)”. It is as Lao Tzu says: “KnowErs are Not good with Words (knerPUC2)”. When you get a clear answer to a clearly formulated question there is often this element of surprise accompanying it: Hey, where did that come from? I still have a long way to go to bring these things about at will but I can increase the probability of it happening more often simply by carrying out the instructions Lao Tzu is giving to his students.
. “Above average Students ( +Ün) when they Hear the Truth (^dA1) they will Diligently study And Practice It (#6btpr Z)”.
. “My Words are Very Easy to Understand (myC2%tezkn) Very Easy (%tez) if you
Practice(pr)” my lessons.
. Working on the concordance for the Neiye is tough for me. Getting away from it to do this section is like a vacation. But realizing that this work too, is practice takes some of the frustration out of it. Also keeping my goal in mind: To make the truth in the Ching and the Neiye accessible to communicators (C).
. I also have to remember that I am not responsible for what the communicators (C) do, or not do, is also good exercise. Gita 47 comes to mind: Your dharma is to do your job. Fretting about the reward for the job you are doing is not your dharma. This is a very hard lesson to learn. I still am wasting a lot of energy on getting angry at lazy, afraid, stubborn, selfish and stupid communicators (C). Lao Tzu has already said that 2300 years ago: “WordErs Don’t Know (C2erPUkn)”. So what am I angry about?
. The more I study this ancient Chinese poetry the more I realize that that message couldn’t have been conveyed better in any other language than Chinese. Not even in Sanskrit. And not having to UnLearn(PUÜd)” things which parents and teachers teach native speakers of Chinese has certain advantages.
=====================================================
September 28, 2010
. This series on Venezuela and Hugo Chavez has come to a satisfactory end: His opposition has taken away some of Hugo’s totalitarian powers. He will drag out the point at which he allows the opposition to interfere with his plans as long as possible, but it will also reveal what he has done all along. So, in the long run, whatever he does now will diminish his chances to win the 2012 election.
. When he can see what the outcome of the next election will be, he can either change his mind about his marshal law plan or not. And if not, it will be bloody. The outcome of that showdown is hard to predict but a lot depends on the “millions of illegal firearms”. They outnumber the army. And a lot depends on the army. Are they going to obey Chavez’s orders to shoot their own people. Remember that the first army that was ordered to shoot the students at Tinaman square refused to do it. The army that did it was better “trained”
. Here is a quote from page 292 of THE MORNING OF THE MAGICIANS: There “was the ordinary rank-and-file S.S. man who was only a soul-less machine, a working robot. He was mass-produced, chosen for his ‘negative’ qualities. Here there was no question of doctrine, only of training.” Can Chavez “train” enough of his soldiers to shoot their own people? …
Chavez’s attempt to stay in power at all cost, will be a bloody one, no matter what the outcome will be. He can count on that the CIA etc. will not help the people because they rather have a dictatorship in Venezuela than a democracy. They are so afraid of democracy that they might even help Chavez to get what he wants.
. Why are there “illegal firearms” in Venezuela? …
Why are there illegal firearms in Canada? …
Why did Hitler make firearms illegal in Germany …
I don’t want to insult your intelligence, so I won’t answer this question. However, knowledge is power. Knowledge of the truth in the heads of the people is more important than guns in their hands. Truth is the lifeblood of democracy. What is happening in Venezuela has given me the opportunity to express better, what I was trying to get across since late 1980. That was after Jagad Guru Shri Kripalu Mahaprabhu has helped me to understand Plato’s Republic.
. The whole Venezuela series started because I “accidentally” deleted half a day’s work from my computer’s memory. To get back on track I have to do that work over again.
==================================================
September 27, 2010
. In the September 23 section I said: “If the people know what a dictator has to do to establish his dictatorship then, if they are not stifled by fear, they can prevent their dictator from gaining absolute power.”
. I am very happy to see that this has happened in Venezuela.
=========================================================
September 23, 2010
. If the “People do Not Fear the Power (MnPUâl*) of their dictator yet Then(18) they can still call on a Greater Power to Come (TA*a^f)”. *a = Wei38.
. This quote comes from Ching 72. Lao Tzu said that over 2300 years ago. What does it mean? …
Like the social engineers, the dictator’s goon squads condition people’s minds. It takes time to instil the “Fear(âl) in people’s minds. This is why Chavez is already starting with it now. Please watch the videos to see what I mean.
. If the people know what a dictator has to do to establish his dictatorship then, if they are not yet stifled by fear, they can prevent their dictator from gaining absolute power. This is why knowledge is power. This is why neither Chavez nor his opposition can tell the people the whole truth. They rather have the opposition take over than the people. Guns in the hands of the citizens can deter a dictator. That’s what this “gun registry” here in Canada is all about. But nothing is as powerful as the knowledge of the truth.
I have put a scanned version of my Dictionary-Concordance in front of file #5. I got it there but it is long, so there might be trouble getting it out in one piece. I just got it edited as best as I could. The original was messy. Still, the scanning software is amazing. And without this dictionary, the two-digit identifiers. Like “(MnPUâl*)” are meaningless.
===================================================
September 22, 2010
. The vote in Venezuela is only four days away. In the last election Hugo Chavez has brought about his overwhelming majority by educating and informing the voters about his opposition. In this election the people can bring about a majority for democracy by educating and informing each other about dictatorship.
. The videos are there. It is true that the opposition has produced most of them but does that make them untrue? …
. Most videos on 9/11 are produced by those who are opposed to the “official versions” of 9/11. Does that make these documentaries untrue? …
. The CIA is supporting democracy in this election. Why? …
To infiltrate it and then to take it over. How else can they get their power back? …
They can if Chavez is trying to pull off his permanent marshal law as Hitler did. The CIA is pushing him in that direction. To Chavez dictatorship seems to be the only way to prevent the CIA from getting its power back. He is wrong. He could have educated and informed the people properly. Now the people have to do it themselves.
=======================================================
September 20, 2010
. Why can’t Hugo Chavez of Venezuela allow Plato’s Republic to be taught in his educational system? …
Because no ruler, who is not FOR the people can allow the truth to be known by the people. Why? …
Because if the people know the truth then the truth will set them free. Therefore the decision to teach the truth to the people is not "in the interest of themselves, the rulers (338e)”. The
capitalists (D) are FOR the capitalists, a
dictator and his goon-squads (C) are FOR themselves,
timocrats (B) are for the timocrats and the
people (A) are FOR the people (demos, in Greek).
If we want a government that is FOR the people then we need a government OF the peple in which the decisions are made BY the people.
How, then, can the capitalists (level D on Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)”), a dictator (C) or our political masters (B) allow the truth to be taught in school? …
. For more detail, please read on.
===========================================================
September 19, 2010
. In the September 17 section I said: “Notice how consensus decision-making and majority vote are mixed. COMBINED would be the better word. Majority vote is necessary and more efficient than reaching a consensus of all members. Pragmatism (D) is as real as idealism (B). Ideally a presenter presents a proposal and everybody shows the green card. To expect that every time is not only impractical but impossible. There are four different types of people. Not everybody is interested in religion (A (bhakti yoga)), philosophy (B (Jnana yoga)), politics (C (raja yoga)) or economics (D (karma yoga)) as everybody else. So, not everybody can be expected to know as much about these subjects as everybody else. That is why we need the yellow cards. But if even one member shows the red card, the proposal can’t pass. If it did, it wouldn’t be a consensus.
. This was not really a mistake, but it is something important “Enough(Zu)” to need our attention. Near the end of the same section I said that “no one is better able to prevent the almost inevitable takeover of the PPT by CIA infiltrators is Hugo Chávez.” It should have been, THAN “Hugo Chávez”. This is a clear syntactic error. Why did “I” make it? … The question is really: Which “I” made it? …
. In the last sentence of that section I said “that Chavez doesn’t want to give up his power”. That statement is in present tense. And then, still in the same sentence I said “that he believed that a dictatorship is best for the country.” That is in past tense. How do I know that at the time of writing Chavez doesn’t still believe that? …
I can’t know that. So you can call that statement a mistake. But …
“When Chávez is made to understand by the majority of the people that …. The CIA is more afraid of democracy than of dictatorship.”, then he might listen. And “if he is willing to change his mind, grab him.”
. In the September 18 section, I gave an example of why it is so hard to predict what people will do. I said “For instance I intend to say something ….and when I type it out I may change it again.” A good example if this is the third sentence of the September 15 section. I remember distinctly that I intended to say: It may save lives. But see for yourself what I said: “I may save lives.” And I didn’t catch it when proofreading either. What my shadow must have intended to convey to you is that, by properly communicating (C) my ideas (B), WE “may save lives.”
. Your communication skills and my thinking skills by themselves are ineffective. We need THE DIVISION OF LABOR and a healthy society has it. How can the social engineers, who control our educational system, teach philosophy and political science without teaching Plato’s Republic? …
===============================================
September 18, 2010
. The election in Venezuela is eight days away. Is the outcome predictable? …
No, it isn’t because as humans we have the freedom of choice. For instance I intend to say something in this blog, but when I write it down it may be something else, and when I type it out I may change it again. So how can I predict what Venezuelans decide to vote for? Will they chose Chavez’s dictatorship (C)? or the CIA’s timocracy (B)? or will they vote for Margarita Lopez Maya’s democracy (A)? …
If the people know what these three types of government really are then which one “the people” will vote for is predictable. People will vote for democracy (A) because democracy is FOR people. But Chavez (C) tells them one thing, and the mass-media (D and B) tells them another. But now, that EL POPULAR here in Canada supports “una ‘democracia participativa’” it is safe for me to say that EL NACIONAL in Venezuela does the same. So why do the timocrats (B) support Democracy (A)? …
To answer this question we must first know who these timocrats are. Let us consult Lao Tzu. At chapter 3 of his Tao Te Ching he tells us that they are the rulers in an “Intelligent Man’S Government (wsmn Z85)”. At Ching 5, he tells us that these “Intelligent Men wsmn) are InHuman (PU%5)”, they have no soul, no conscience. Only when you know what these people are can you believe what kind of decisions they routinely make.
. They know that they can’t win the next election. So what will they do? …
Support a party that has a better chance. Why? …
They have taken over the Green Party in Canada and in Germany, they can do it again. In Germany the two leaders committed “mutual suicide”. At least that’s the “official version” of what happened. The Green Party still exists in name but who is running it? … The PPT will still exist in name, but who will make the decisions? The people (A) or the intelligent rulers (B)? …
. There is another question. Chavez can predict the outcome of the election. What is he going to do when he sees that he isn’t going to win? …
I can’t tell you that, but I can tell you what would be the right thing to do: Allow the people to vote for the political system they want, and if the PPT comes out ahead, support it and prevent the CIA from taking it over.
. If you can’t predict the outcome in Venezuela, don’t worry, just wait, it in a few days you will know it.
==================================================
September 17, 2010
. In the September 12 section I said that “Venezuela needs a leader, like Chávez, but ….” Well, yesterday I found out that Venezuela has such a leader. Her name is Margarita Lopez Maya. She is proposing “la ‘otra opcion’” which is “una ‘democracia participativa’.” Her party is called “Patria Para (for) Todos (all) (PPT). Please don’t think that, because I have given you the English equivalents of two Spanish words, that I know Spanish, but I have a Spanish dictionary. How come that I stumble upon page 20 of the September 16 issue of EL POPULAR? …
Well, don’t you think that we should know when the election in Venezuela will be? I didn’t even know that much about Venezuela when “A stranger gave me the August 23 edition of THE NEW YORK TIMES to read on September 7. At that time I was still on Chávez’s side. I blamed the CIA of “BRUTALITY”. That was before I saw the videos. But notice that I also blamed them of “SOPHISTICATION”. They could have setup Chávez to do what he does in order to prevent the CIA getting back into power. But he did have alternatives.
. “Vamos a ver si el 26 de septiembre la voluntad popular ….” We are going to see on September 26 if the popular will”, of the people votes for democracy. When that happens, when Chávez actually sees that the people want democracy more than his dictatorship or the CIA’s timocracy then he might change his mind.
. When Chávez is made to understand by the majority of the people that democracy (A) is better for the country (and the world) than his dictatorship (C) and his opposition’s (la opposition) timocracy (B).
. Actually, the CIA is more afraid of democracy than of dictatorship. To them democracy is like a virus which, once formed in Germany, Canada or in Venezuela, will infect the whole world. This is why I said that what is going to happen in Venezuela, within days now, can affect the whole world.
. When I use the abbreviation CIA, I am referring to Bush & Co to the proposers of the “New World Order”, to the globalists, to the elitists, to the Illuminati, to the learned elders of Zion, you name it. I am referring to those who have very little sympathy for the rest of us.
. There are disenchanted followers of Chávez (del chavismo descantados) and “disenchanted” members of the opposition (de la oposicion). I put that word in quotes because they are most likely infiltrators like the ones who have infiltrated and hijacked the Green Party of Ontario. It is most likely that the CIA is trying the same thing in Venezuela. This is why the PPT needs a member like Chávez who probably already knows some of the infiltrators.
. Let me tell you how we handled them here in Ontario, at least for a while. When I joined the party, most infiltrators were already there. On a long Weekend thirty of us went to Pineridge, Ontario, to hammer out our party’s constitution by means of the consensus decision-making process. I didn’t know then that the members, who kept saying that the consensus decision-making process does not work and who were doing all they could to make sure that it doesn’t, were infiltrators. I had just read Eric Berne’s GAMES THAT PEOPLE PLAY and I thought that these people were playing this new game to suck our energy. So I put my intellect to work to put an end to what they were doing so consistently.
. To describe what I came up with, I have to describe the process first: A proposer was given the floor for a given amount of time to present his proposal to the members. The members have a green, a yellow and a red card, one of which they can hold up at voting time. The green card means: I understand the proposal and I agree with it. Go ahead! The yellow card means: I don’t fully understand the proposal but I don’t object. Go ahead! And the read card means: Stop! I understand the proposal and I don’t agree with it. I don’t want this proposal to be ratified.
. If “Enough(Zu)” members show the yellow card then the proposal is put on hold. The proposer will be given the floor again but s/he must clarify the proposal so that more members can understand it.
. If a member shows the red card then s/he is asked what his or her objection(s) to the proposal is or are. The matter is put to the vote and if a majority shows the red card, the proposal is rejected. And if a majority shows the yellow card the proposal is put on hold. Notice how consensus decision-making and majority vote are mixed.
. Between the voting sessions, there is free time where the members mill around, in pairs, smaller or in bigger groups. In some groups questions, which those who showed the yellow cards had, are answered, in other groups the objections a member had to a proposal are discussed, and in still other groups, those who are waiting in line to present their proposal are doings something that can be called canvassing for their proposal. If a member has a valid objection to your proposal, why waste valuable time by presenting a proposal which you know is going to be shot down? There were 30 of us. If a saboteur only wastes two minutes of group-time that is one hour collectively. So why would a responsible member waste group-time unnecessarily?
. When I got the idea of how to deal with the saboteurs, I signed up for presenting it and then I started canvassing for it, to find out what my chances are of having my proposal accepted. I joined a group in which the facilitator and one of the saboteurs were present and when my turn to speak came up, I said that these saboteurs are wasting a lot of our time. It would save valuable time to disqualify them. This is what “you”, the facilitator, can do about the problem: If a member raises the red card when s/he should only have raised the yellow one. And if, when asked, s/he says that s/he doesn’t know what the proposer was talking about, then give them the floor with as much time to explain themselves as the presenter had. It doesn’t matter what the false objector says, what matters is what the membership decides on. This has to be a majority vote because the infiltrator may have fellow infiltrators who want to prevent the decision of the majority to take effect. After the false objector’s time is up, and if a majority of the members show the red card, it means that the member’s voting rights are revoked for the rest of the meeting.
. At the very next voting session the member, who was present when I did my canvassing, did the very same thing again.
. The facilitator told her that he doesn’t have to wait for Peter’s proposal to be ratified, I can give you your floor-time right now. And if you do that again, I will. This is roughly what he said and none of the saboteurs did it again. I didn’t know then, why my proposal worked so well, but now I know that none of the infiltrators wanted to be identified as an infiltrator.
. The threat of being infiltrated by “disillusioned” members of Chávez's oppopsition is very real, and no one is better able to prevent the almost inevitable takeover of the PPT by CIA infiltrators is Hugo Chávez. So, if he is willing to change his mind, grab him.There is evidence that Chavez doesn't want to give up his power but there is also evidence that he believed that a dictatorship is best for the country.
=================================================
.September 15, 2010
. I have turned the last section into a flyer. If you come across one, try to get it into the hands of a Venezuelan in exile. I may save lives.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DICTATORSHIP what is it?
. Before the showdown Hugo Chávez’s goon squats have to do their killing secretly. After the showdown, the “law” entitles them to imprison, torture and kill people legally. The “Law” gives them the right to do that because if Chávez is allowed to establish his dictatorship then he is the “Law”. He will give his GESTAPO totalitarian powers over the people just as Hitler did, or as any other dictator does.
. No dictator can do without his goon squats. These are the ones who instill the “Fear(âl)” in people and fear is the source of power in a dictatorship. ….
. Wei(âl) is only in two chapters in the Tao Te Ching. In chapter 17 it refers to the dictator, and in chapter 72 it means: While the “People do Not Fear the Power (MnPUâl*a) of the dictator yet, They-can-still-cause(18) a Greater Power to Come(TA*a^f)” *a = Wei38.
. A dictionary equivalent of Tao(A1) is “Truth(A1)”. The “Truth” is “One( 1)”. It can “Unite($1)” the “People(Mn)”. And the people united can’t be defeated. Not by fear (C), not with money (D) and not by social engineering (B).
====== The September 14 section of PetersTao.blogspot.com file #4 ends here.====
. . . Try to find the videos, of the brutality and of the murdered in Venezuela on the internet. Try Google: Chavez mentiras. If so much brutality can no longer be hidden now, before the “showdown”, what will life in Venezuela be like after the showdown?
. . . The timocrats (B) may be back in power. And that is better than the dictatorship (C) Chavez has in mind. But, what else could happen?
. . . Democracy. The economic (D), political (C), intellectual (B) and the human (A) spheres correspond to Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)”. The four classes also correspond to Lao Tzu”s fourfold division of the “Big Tao (Ta Tao)”.
. . . Democracy [A] is a fourfold social order.
========= The flyer ends here ==============================
Timocracy (B) is a threefols social order. In it the B-C “DyAd(dyad)” is the ruler and the the people (A) are the ruled. A dictatorship is a twofold social order. In it dictator and the people form the “DyAd” in which the dictator is the ruler and the people are the ruled. In capitalism there is only the profit motive. Capitalists don’t ask themselves: What does it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his only soul? ...
Strangely enough, they are trying to convince everybody else that money is the only thing that counts. Why? ...
Could it be that they are not so sure about it themselves? ...
Could it bee that they need the moral support of numbers to feel right about it? ...
If enough people can be made to believe it then it must be true. Right? ...
. After this crash course in political science, it is safe to say that, as a result of the showdown, three things can happen. …
1: Chavez gets away with establishing his dictatorship (C). …
2: The timocrats get their timocracy (B) back, and 3? …
Why does Chavez and the CIA both want the showdown? …
. Please don’t just wait for me to tell you. Please think along with it. …
They want the showdown because both believe that they will be the winner in this battle. This contest is costing the lives of thousands of Venezuelans, which tells us that ...
neither of the two contestants cares about the people. Chavez and the timocrats are looking after their own interests.
. The CIA has a more realistic view of the situation, so they have the better chance of coming out on top than Chavez has. Neither of them wants the people to win this battle. And yet, if “Enough(Zu)” people, a critical mass, understands enough political science then they will be the outcome in the C-B-A triad.
. The CIA (B) can’t initiate this process, they have to wait for Chavez to do it. Whether they know it or not, they are the connective between dictatorship (C) and democracy (A) in the C-B-A “TriAd( 3ad)”.
. How applicable these abstract theories (B) are to the down to earth (D) reality, will be seen before the next election in Venezuela. If a critical mass of Venezuelans knows the truth, which ,when known, will set the people free, then the outcome of this terrible, but unique, situation is predictable.
===================================================
September 14, 2010
. Before the showdown Hugo Chávez’s goon squats have to do their killing secretly. After the showdown, the “law” entitles them to imprison, torture and kill people legally. The “Law” gives them the right to do that because, if Chávez is allowed to establish his dictatorship, then he is the “Law”. He will give his GESTAPO totalitarian powers over the people just as Hitler did, or any other dictator does.
. No dictator can do without his goon squats. These are the ones who instill the “Fear(âl)” in people and fear is the source of power in a dictatorship.
. This has to be said better, and in Spanish, because Venezuelans must know what they will be getting into if the allow Chávez to establish his dictatorship.
. What brought my attention to this is a mistake I made in the September 11 section. I misspelled training, I asked: “Is Chávez traing the killers to become his future GESTAPO? …” … The red line of my spellchecker is right under the “traing” but I guess that I wasn’t supposed to see it. And I am glad that I didn’t because now another thing comes to mind:
. Wei(âl) is only in two chapters in the Tao Te Ching. In chapter 17 it refers to the dictator, and in chapter 72 it means: While the “People do Not Fear the Power (MnPUâl*a) of the dictator yet, They-can-still-cause(18) a Greater Power to Come(TA*a^f)” *a = Wei38..
. A dictionary equivalent of Tao(A1) is “Truth(A1)”. The “Truth” is “One( 1)”. It can “Unite($1)” the “People(Mn)”. And the people united can’t be defeated. Not by fear (C), not with money (D) and not by social engineering (B).
==============================================
September 13, 2010
. What Hugo Chávez says about human rights is one thing, and what his goon squads are doing about it, some of which has been captured on video, is something else.
. We have here a thesis-antithesis dyad, which calls for its synthesis. To say that the “Tao Produces the One (A1Sg 1), the One Produces the Two ( 1Sg 2) and the Two Produces the Three ( 2Sg 3)”, is a safe thing to do, because this has been true for a long time, but it is not as safe for me to try relate these abstractions to what is actually happening in Venezuela right now. Why? …
Because I don’t have “Enough(Zu)” of the details. I have only seen the videos, I haven’t been there. This is why I said: yesterday: Don’t “bother to translate this into Spanish”, you might pass the errors I have made on to others. If you understand some part of it then “just say it in Spanish.” Not all theories (B) which are produced in the semantic dimension of semiotics (B) will, or should, work in the pragmatic dimension (D), that is why the syntactic dimension (C) is the connective between theory (B) and practice (D). If you know “Enough” Systematics, you know that I am talking about the B-C-D triad. That is the triad we get when the thinkers (B) initiate the process, the communicators (C) are the connective and the outcome is manifested on the material level (D). When Chavez (C) initiates the process, we either have the C-B “DyAd(dyad)” or the C-B-A triad, in which democracy (A) will be the outcome, but there is no guarantee that the people will get that “TriAd( 3ad)” going. Without the triad we don’t have semiotics. Without the people (A) in the semantic dimension (B) there can only be the C-B “DyAd(dyad)” in which only Chávez (C) or the timocrats (B) have a chance to win. This bit of semiotics will have to do.
. At least some of this has to be understood by a critical mass of the people in Venezuela if they are to unite and become a player in that power play. We are talking here about political science. The knowledge a critical mass of the people has of political science will determine what will happen in Venezuela next.
. By political science I don’t the “political science” that is taught by the timocrats (B) in our universities or by Chavez (C) in his universities. I mean the political science that is understood and taught by the people (A).
. Chávez can’t teach political science because his dictatorship (C) is the worst one of the four possible systems of government. The timocrats (B) can’t tell us the whole truth either because their timocracy (B) is not a democracy (A).
. In chapter 18 of Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching, dictatorship (C) is the worst one. But in chapter 17 timocracy (B) is the worst one. Why? …
Because a benevolent dictator might do better than the rulers in a “Wise Man’S Government (wsmn Z85)”. In fact, after the Berlin wall went down, I went to the former East Germany and my landlady told me that she was better off under the Communist dictatorship than under what is supposed to be a “democracy”.
. To go into more details, as I have done in the previous sections can do more harm than good. All I will say now is: Use what of it you understand and forget the rest.
====================================================
September 12, 2010
. In the last section, behind this one, I said: “The capitalists [D] are behind any government in power.” This explains why: Mr. Chávez has benn “unable”, or unwilling, “to close the dangerous gap between rich and poor”. And again: “The gap between rich and poor remains wide”. Coming from a paper which is owned by the rich, this is hypocritical, but it shows that, if it is expedient, they will tell us anything, even the truth. Venezuelans can find out the truth by reading both sides of the story: The information Chávez’s government controls and “the news outlets it does not control.”
. Originally I was all for Chávez as Linda McQuaig was, and still is? But then, when I saw that Chávez (C) was not interested in democracy (A) I lost interest in Venezuela. And now since a stranger gave me The New York Times to read, and after I saw the videos of Chávez’s brutal policies, I changed my mind about him.
. We start with a thesis, and if nothing challenges it we have it for the rest of our lives. The New York Times article caused me to look at the situation on the video and it verified what I had suspected all along. So, when the thesis is challenged by the antithesis, the “One Producees the Two ( 1Sg 2)”. If there is no thesis, there is nothig to challenge, and there can be no antithesis. But if you know enough Systematics then you know that thesis and antithesis is not all there is too it. And then the “Two Produces the Three ( 2Sg 3)”. Venezuelans need the synthesis to get beyond the “DyAd(dyad)”. And HOW can they “Produce(Sg)” it? …
If you are hooked on the mass media, and they are good at hooking people, then you have to listen to Mr. Chávez a bit more; and if you listen too much to Mr. Chávez then you have to listen to the timocrats (B) a bit more. By paying equal attention to both sides of the story, you are becoming aware of the bigger picture behind these two. The poles of a polarity are the parts of the polarity. You can’t have the one pole without the other. This “Insight(72)” takes you beyond the “DyAd” to the “TriAd( 3ad)”.
.. This is not only what Venezuelans need to, we all have to know it, but the Venezuelans have to know it more urgently than the rest of us. We feel comfortable in our timocracy (B). Chávez is challenging it. He and the CIA are pushing for a showdown and Venezuelans get killed by the thousands in the crossfire between the two opponents. Neither of them cares about the people. Chávez knows that he can end the bloodshed but unless he knows that “Enough(Zu)” people know it as well, he has no reason to stop it.
. I am unable to explain this well “Enough”. If you get it, in spite of my poor communication skills, don’t bother to translate this into Spanish, just say it in Spanish. Both Chávez (C) and the timocrats (B) have to convince “Enough” people that they are right. It looks to me that the timocrats are coming out ahead of Chávez because he is giving them too much ammunition. As we have seen from The New York Times article and as you can see from the videos.
. Chavez is “Underestimating($j (See the word in chapter 69 of the Tao Te Ching)) the intellectual (B), political (C) and economic (D) powers of his “Enemies(âb)”. His desires give rise to wishful thinking.
. The outcome of the battle is unpredictable because us humans have the capacity of the freedom of choice. The decisions of the voters depend on whom they chose to believe. If the decision is only up to Chávez then he will establish his dictatorship as planned without opposition. But after what I have seen in those videos, I believe that his opposition, the timocrats (B), have less people opposing them than Chávez has.
And there is a third player in this game. …
The people united can’t be defeated. What unites them is the truth. If a critical mass of the people knows the truth then it will set them free. And capitalists (D), dictators (C) and timocrats (B) are equally afraid of that. Because of this threat, these enemies are even willing to work together against the people. Is that why no CIA agent is caught for shooting people? The capitalists will help anyone as long as they have a chance to win. But they will not help the people even if they have a better chance. Why? …
Because the people will decide how rich they can get. They can get rich, but it has to be within reason. So they are all fighting the people.
. What Chávez is telling the people is not the whole truth, and he has to know it. It is a half truth. And there are clearly identifiable lies (mentiras) in his speeches. The same goes for his opponents. The truth is to be found in and around of the two extremes. By fighting each other, Chávez (C) and the timocrats (B) provide us with parts of the truth. I said “us” because we can all learn from the terrible, but unique, situation Venezuela is in. It can turn out to be the only democracy in the world and, thus, set an example for the rest of us. So what happens in Venezuela right now, could effect all of us.
. What Venezuela needs is a leader, like Chávez, but one who is more concerned about the people than Chávez turned out to be. Let me repeat: He can stop the killing right now if he wants to.
. Here is the conclusion of chapter 13 of the Tao Te Ching:: “Therefore he who would administer the kingdom, honouring it as he honours his own person, may be employed to govern it, and he who would administer it with the love which he bears to his own person may be entrusted with it (Translation by James Legge)”. Lao Tzu said that 2300 years ago, it is high time that we start to listen to him.
. The situation in Venezuela boils down to this: Who will win the battle? …
Chávez (C)? the thimorats (B)? or the people (A)? …
As we approach the deadline, the answer will be easier to predict. One thing can be predicted with certainty, that we will know the answer before the next election in Venezueal.
. Plato said: The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil man. If a critical mass of Venezuelans know only that much about politics, it can effect the outcome of the battle.
. Also the education, sponsored by Chávez’s government is informing the people about timocracy. So there is bound to be more truth in it about the timocrats (B) than in what the timocrats teach in their public educational systems in the rest of the world. And that will affect the outcome. The internet will certainly have a lot to do with it. All I had to do is watch the videos for a few minutes and my predictions were verified. Also the predictions, I will make next, can effect the outcome, if the right people understand and communicate (C) them properly.
. As I said above, that Venezuela needs a leader, like Chávez. What he has to do is explain Participatory Democracy, enshrine the decision-making right of the members of his party in his party’s constitution and get it working before he runs for office. I know from personal experience that the process serves three purposes. Decision-making BY the people is only one of them. The other one is education: You can’t make decisions about something you don’t know enough about. And the third benefit is more like a bonus than a necessary part of the process. We have called it “community building”. Party members may be neighbours but they never really knew each other. Now they do. Also these meetings could be concluded with an open-stage type of entertainment. Nothing brings people together better than having fun together.
. The success of this effort depends a lot on the education BY the people OF people which automatically will be FOR the people. Until he is elected, this “education” depends on the willingness of a critical mass of Venezuelans to educate themselves and each other.
. Another factor are the illegal guns. How well coordinated are the owners of the “millions of illegal firearms”? …
And what about the legal guns in the hands of the army and the police? …
Are they all going to be used for shooting people who are opposing a mad dictator who hasn’t a chance of winning the battle? …
. Can you see that the answer a critical mass of Venezuelans reach about such questions will effect the outcome of the battle? …
=================================================
September 11, 2010
. The followers of Hugo Chávez are probably willing to let him establish a dictatorship. The crime rate is so high that nothing less than marshal law will stem it. Makes sense? The majority of the citizens of a country don’t benefit from a dictatorship. In fact, those who oppose it face jail, torture and death. The means to establish and maintain a dictatorship is “Fear(âl)”. A dictator needs soulless goon squads to instill that fear. The people that held me down, in the Vladimir Lenin Hospital, in Cuba, and broke my bones to make it look as if I was run over by a truck, were this type of people. Is Chávez traing the killers to become his future GESTAPO? …
This seems far fetched, but if “More than 90 percent of murders go unsolved” this question is justified. Another question arises from this: If CIA agents participate in creating the showdown, How come that not one of them got caught? …
To identify even one of them as a CIA agent or as somebody who has been trained by these agents would make Chávez look better.
. A dictatorship(C) is definitely worse than the timocracy (B) Chávez’s opponents want the people to vote for. Judging by the article, I have quoted from in the last section, it is unlikely that he can win the next election. This forces him to create a situation which justifies him to call for marshal law before the next election.
. Chávez still has a chance to help to establish a Participatory Democracy in which he can be the spokes person. Due to the respect he will regain by doing what is best for Venezuela he would still be in power. The more people know this, the more Chávez will be obligated to satisfy their demand. What are the alternatives to democracy (A)? …
Dictatorship (C) or timocracy (B). Where are the capitalists (D)? …
The capitalists are behind any government in power. What Steiner calls the “economic sphere” (D) has its place in a democracy (A). And it will be a good relationship.
. Now let us look more closely at what will happen when Chávez tries to implement his plan. Let us look at the quote from The New York Times again: The gap between rich and poor remains wide, despite spending on anti-poverty programs, fuelling resentment. Adding to that, the nation is awash in millions of illegal firearms.” Most of them are in the hands of the same kind of people who are hanging on to their guns here in Canada. They are not just waiting for Chávez to make his move, they are very likely already trained by CIA agents on how to respond to Chávez properly. Adding to that, the CIA is backed by NATO and the US Army. There will be infringements on human rights by Chávez’s GESTAPO, there will be an outcry for help by his opponents and the people in general, which will justify the Army to be called in.
. The timocrats try to avoid extreme situations like this, it might wake the people up, but they must stop Chávez at all cost. Chávez is “Underestimating($j)” the intellectual (B), political (C) and economic (D) powers of his “Enemies(âb)”. Why? …
Because his need for power is more of an emotional nature than a practical one. Anyone who still believes that what Chávez intends to do is practical, or rational, is stuck in his “emotional center” (C) just as Chávez is. If Chávez can’t listen to reason (B), why should still more lives be lost than have been lost already because of his refusal to listen to reason? …
==============================================
September 10, 2010
. The people of Venezuela have united and brought Hugo Chávez back into power. The movie, I have seen about it, has documented it well. So the people collectively have dome something for Chávez. Question: …
What has Chávez done for the people? …
. I am going to use The New York Times to answer that question. The New York Times is owned by the same kind of people who own EL NACIONAL. These people are capitalists (D), and capitalists are FOR the capitalists. They are not FOR the people. So why use a one-sided source to answer my question? …
Facts are facts. Many social engineers write for these papers. They are well trained and intelligent enough to know that if they distort the facts too much, they get caught. What we have to watch out for is HOW the facts are presented, how they are “Repeated(@1)” etc. So here is their answer to my question:
“While many Venezuelians saw the picture [of the “homicide victims”] as a sober reminder of their vulnerability and a chance to rekindle public debate, the government viewed it differently …. [it] has been unable to close the dangerous gap between rich and poor and make the country’s streets safer.
. ‘Forget the hundreds of children who die from stray bullets, or the kids who go through the horror of seeing their parents or older siblings killed before their eyes,’ said …. Venezuela is struggling with a decade-long surge in homicides …. Since President Hugo Chávez took office in 1999, …. Caracas itself is almost unrivalled among large cities in the Americas for its homicide rate, …. scholars here describe the steady climb in homicides in the past decade as unprecedented in Venezuelan history; the number of homicides last year was three times higher than when Mr. Chávez was elected in 1998. …. While many Latin American economies are growing fast, Venezuela’s has continued to shrink. The gap between rich and poor remains wide, despite …. Mr. Chávez has worsened the homicide problem by cutting money for state and city governments led by political opponents. …. Mr. Olivares said …. ‘We elected him to crack down on the problems we face,’ he said ‘But there’s no control of criminals on the street, no control of anything.’” This will have to do. After all, typing is not my dharma.
. The way the facts are stated is slanted, of course, but facts are facts. If “More than 90 percent of murders go unsolved” then I wonder why? …
If I elect a candidate (C), because he is not going to do what he is told to do by unelected advisors (B) then he is free to do what is best for the country. And if things go as badly as they do in Venezuela, then I would like to know why? Why is Chávez not levelling with the people? Why doesn’t he help them to establish a Participatory Democracy? If that saves thousands of lives what prevents Chávez from doing it? …
. These are questions that will arise in concerned citizens without having to be set up for them by EL NACIONAL. The timocrats (B) supported by the CIA, EL NACIONA, etc. have their following, and so does Chávez. The minds of these followers are not free to look at the situation objectively. But from a safe distance, like Toronto, you can look at both sides of the story and reach a more rational conclusion. Let me try to describe to you what I have come up with so far:
. The “steady climb in homicides” is “unprecedented”. It needs an explanation. It seems to me that both, the government and the CIA, are the cause of it. Why do they want to kill people? Is it some new kind of sport? Do you have better questions than that? …
Both Chávez and the CIA are pushing for a showdown. Websr’s tells us that this word means “a laying down of caeds, face upwards, …. Disclosure of truth”. What does “showdown” mean in politics? …
It means that, if you have been working secretly towards a dictatorship, the showdown is when you come right out with it/ It is a turning point. What before our political masters didn’t want us to know, now they want us to know. Why? ...
Because you have to know that if you do something your ruler doesn’t like, you get thrown into jail with no lawyer, no nothing. We had a little taste of it here in Toronto at the G20 protest. Our political masters didn’t show us their full hand, but they showed us enough to find out what our reaction will be when they pull off the real thing. In the transition from timocracy (B) to dictatorship (C) it is always the dictator who initiates the process.
Why, then, does the CIA need these murders? …
They want their candidates to win the next election. And to accomplish that …
they have to make Chávez look bad. And you have seen a nice example of that in the quote I have given you. And if it is true that “More than 90 percent of murders go unsolved” then that does make Mr. Chávez look bad.
. Now, why does Chávez. Need these murders? …
There is “Enough(Zu)” evidence to show what Chávez. Intends to do to stay in power. And for that he needs an excuse to call for a martial law. Sounds far fetched? …
Time will tell.
. If Chávez. Tries to pull it off, he can only succeed without bloodshed if the people and the CIA take it laying down. It is very unlikely that the people who have been prepared for this eventuality will do that. It is even less likely that the CIA will do that.
. Candidates (C), working for the timocrats (B), will appeal to the public for a bloodless transition from Chávez (C) to their advisors (B). The people have seen so much bloodshed they had enough of it and, while a timocracy (B) is not as good as a democracy (A), it is not as bad as a dictatorship. So if that is the only choice then this is the better one. But it is not the only choice. …
The people have united and stood up for Chávez. And they got him back, why can’t the people (A) stand up for themselves? …
The people have also been informed about the timocracy (B) by government-sponsored news outlets and hey have been given a different type of political science education than they get in a timocracy. I don’t know the details of Chávez sponsored education, but in theory, there should be more truth in it. Some call the change “irreversible”. This would mean that when you know the truth then “Ridiculing(*41)” it is seen for what it is. So, if a critical mass of Venezuelans don’t want timocracy (B) and they don’t want a dictatorship (C) and capitalism (D) is only for the rich, what choice is left for them? …
I don’t know HOW to establish a Participatory Democracy in Venezuela, I don’t even know exactly HOW we did it here in Ontario, but some of us knew it and we did it.
. Another possibility is that somebody talks sense to Mr. Chávez and he changes his mind to save thousands of lives and to do what is best for the country.
What I have tried to explain here can be clarified by Systematics. But if that isn’t your cup of tea, just skip this last paragraph. What we have here is the C-B-A triad. C, that is Mr. Chávez, is in the initiating position. Chávez (C) is up against the timocrats (B), these are the opponents. They form the “DyAd(dyad)” in the “TriAd( 3ad)”. The people (A) are the “Monad($1)” in the triad. For details you have to see J. G. Bennett’s DRAMATIC UNIVERSE. But there is also a lot you can learn from Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Cing. These three N-Term systems, monad, dyad and triad can help you to get a better understanding of otherwise incomprehensible situations. But in systems in which humans are the parts the outcome is unpredictable because we have the capacity, and responsibility, for the freedom of choice. What can be said, however, is that if the people are left out of the equation then we don’t have a triad, then the dyad is all there is and then the choice is only timocracy or dictatorship.
===============================================
September 9, 2010
. How do you explain “Venezuela’s crime problem? …
One explanation comes from The New York Times, August 25 edition:
“As Mr. Chávez’s government often points out, Venezuela’s crime problem did not emerge overnight, and the concern over murders preceded his rise to power. …. But some crime specialists say another factor has to be considered: Mr. Chávez’s government itself.” True or false? …
True and false. It is a half truth. Mr. Chavez does intend to hold on to his power but the “timocrats” also want their power back. In a timocracy (B) not the elected politicians (C) but their unelected advisors (B) make the decisions. For details, please see Plato’s Republic.
. Chavez got democratically elected but he didn’t play the game. He knew too much about the CIA. Obviously they didn’t like it, and what they tried to do about it is well documented in the movie: The Revolution shall not be televised.
. The attempt to topple Chavez failed because the people didn’t go along with it. Venezuela came closer to democracy than possibly any other country in the world. I saw the movie and I saw what that could mean to the world. And I said in this blog that now there is the opportunity to establish a Participatory Democracy. If Chavez had done that, a lot of murders could have been avoided. And he could have set an example other countries could follow. Problem is that decisions are made for the decision-maker. The people have to make the decisions if they are to be FOR the people. Capitalists (D) make decisions for the capitalists, elected presidents (C) can make decisions that are for the people (A) but it is human to make your decisions for yourself. That is why Lao Tzu has asked the “Leader( E)” he was advising: If you “Love the People then, in Governing the Country, are you Able to do it Without the usual Cleverness (%0Mn8531abWUkn)?(HU)” There is an alternative for the Wu(WU) Chih(kn) at the end. It is WuWei (WUdo). And that takes us from Ching 10 to Ching 3: If you “Govern Without Doing (doWUdo) it yourself Then Nothing will Not be Governed (18WUPU85)” because …
the people will then be able to govern themselves. I knew that way back then. That’s why I became a cofounder of the Ontario Green Party. I saw then that this was the way to go. But I also saw that the social engineers illegally rewrote our constitution and got away with it. I was a member of the Greenwood Greens constituency association, here in Toronto. We protested. And we simply got deregistered.
. When I saw the movie, I saw great hope for humanity. There was a chance for people to see the system, that was sabotaged in Canada and Germany, working.
. When I saw that Chavez had other ideas, I lost interest in Venezuela. It was only now, when a stranger gave me The New York Times to read that the article on Venezuela stared me in the face.
. Even though, from what I said about it in this blog, what happened next was predictable, it was still sad to see that such a great opportuniy ended up like this. There are three possible ways Venezuela can go from here: …
1) Chavez declares a permanent martial law and gets away with it,
2) Chavez declares a permanent martial law and does not gets away with it. This second possibility is actually the more probable one. Cavez is blinded by his need for pover, he can’t see the big picture. If he could, he wouldn’t try to do what he intends to do.
. The timocrats, on the other hand, know what they are doing. Both need the increasing crime rate, both for their own reasons. And because of this power-struggle many more people have to die. And the realization of this could lead the people to vote for a candidate (C) that works for his advisors (B) as planned. After all, A timocracy (B) may not be as good as a democracy (A) it is not as bad as a dictatorship (C). What the social engineers have to do now is to convince the people of the truth, for a change. And there are backup plans. “Chavez in “Underestimating the intellectual, political and economic powers of his Enemies”.
. When it comes to the showdown both Chavez and the CIA are pushing towards, there is the third possibility. The situation Chavez and the CIA are creating together is again unique in the world. Ordinarlly neither the capitalists (D) nor the timocrats (B) are allowing a situation to degenerate this far because neither B nor D want a dictatorship. They don’t want to give the wrong dictator (C) an excuse to declare a permanent marshall law. What type of government are B, C and D even more affraid of? …
===============================================
September 8, 2010
“Mr. Chávez had worsened the homicide problem by …. removing thousands of guns from their [his “political opponents”’] police forces”. Now, that is suspicious. What do “gun-controls” mean here in Canada? …
. The quotes on this page are from The New York Times August 23 edition. “Many experienced state employees have had to leave public service, or even the country.” I met an emigrant from Venezuela here in Toronto. Obviously I go a one-sided story from him. The other side comes from the movie: The Revolution shall not be Televised, and from Linda McQuaig. She has actually met Chávez. There are advantages in judging Venezuela’s situation from a distance as long as you get both sides of the story. The story I got from the emigrant is the same people get from the articles like the one I got from The New York Times: “A front-page photo in El Nacional showed homicide victims in a Caracas morgue.” We can assume that EL NACIONAL is owned by the same people that own the rest of the mass-media.
. “A court ordered the paper to stop publishing images of violence, as if that would quiet growing questions about why the government …. Has been unable to ….make the country’s streets safer. …. Meanwhile the debate over the morgue photograph published by the newspaper, El National, is intensifying, evolving into a broader discussion over the government’s efforts to clamp down on the news outlets it does not control.
. “The government says the photograph was meant to undermine it, not to inform the public.” And that is true of the mass-media in general, not just of EL NACIONAL. What we can see from articles, like this one, is that they are skilfully written to convince the reader of one side of the whole only.
. “But the government says it is trying to address the problem …. police recruits get training from advisors from Cuba and Nicaragua, two allies that have historically maintained among Latin America’s lowest murder rates.” But to make the methods that work in Cuba work in Venezuela, what type of government does Venezuela need for that? …
“More than 90 percent of murders go unsolved, without a single arrest.” Now that is suspicious. “the steady climb in homicides” can be explained by the possibility that both CIA and GESTAPO like government forces are committing these murders. Why? …
Please think along with this. …
The timocrats (B) want their timocracy back and Chávez wants to stay in power. Both are pushing for that inevitable showdown at the cost of thousands of lives. Ervin Laszlo explains it well. There are “turning points” in history where changes are inevitable. He is talking about the problems of science which can’t be solved within the present scientific paradigm. A new one will inevitably emerge. Laszlo talks about this phenomena broadly enough so that I have to give him credit for the present “Insight(72)”.
. In my last, September 7 section, I said that Chávez “would also have to see that Participatory Democracy is the only solution to his countries problem.” But will seeing it cause him to support democracy? …
He needs a dictatorship (C) to stay in power. I was a co-founder of the Green Party of Ontarion. I know that Participatory Democracy would have been the best for Canada and Germany. But are those in power willing to hand it over to the people? …
It looks to me that Chávez is not. Why? ...
. Decisions are made for the decision-maker. That means that ...
the people have to make decisions that are for the people.
. “(The government has stopped publicly releasing its own detailed homicide statistics ….) There have been 42,792 homicides in Venezuela since 2007, [this is] …. Unprecedented in Venezuelian history; the number of homicides last year was three times higher than when Mr. Chavez was elected in 1998.” Will he be elected again? …
As I said in the last section: Chávez “is no match to their …. Sophistication.” Again, “A court ordered the paper to stop publishing ….”. That is crude. Now everybody knows about it and it causes more harm that good. Cháves could learn a lesson or two from the social engineers of HOW to make the truth “disappear” with hardly anybody knowing about it. Take Participatory Democracy. It “disappeared” in Canada and Germany but who knows about it? Take a principle closer to my heart: Semiotics. HOW did our political masters make it “disappear”? …
Please Google: obscurantism derrida
Semiotics is the B-C-d triad. This triad is the A-B-C-D tetrad we had in the original IBM computer programming system. So they made that “disappear” as well, and who has heard about that? …
. Chávez comes nowhere close to their sophistication.
Let’s get back to my study guides. We have to get four jobs done: The first two are necessary to work on these texts efficiently. The other two are not as important.
1. The 81 chapters listed as I have given an example of in the September 2 section.
2. A list of the roughly 400 characters, which appear in more than one chapter,
. .given as the two-digit identifiers, followed by its phonetic and redical number.
3. The Chinese character lookup table for these 400 characters followed by their
. . Identifier. This job is desireable but we can do without it.
4. The Dictionary for the characters in the Ching and the Neiye. Again,
. . this job is desirable but not as important as the first two.
===================================================
September 7, 2010
. A stranger gave me the August 23 edition of THE NEW YORK TIMES to read:
“AS KILLINGS IN VENEZUELA SOAR, SOME QUESTIONS WHY …. Venezuela is struggling with a decade-long surge of homicides …. since Hugo Chávez took office”.
. The fact is that the timocrats (B) want Chávez out to get back in. And he is no match to their brutality and sophistication.
BRUTALITY: They are killing members of their own club, or their children, to blame Chávez for it. Its an old “trick (548a)”, they have done it before.
SOPHISTICATION: Social engineering is a science. Chávez know a lot about it, but not “Enough(Zu)”, he is still “Underestimating his Enemies (Sjâb)”. And of “Calamities There-is-none Greater Than (ÜfMOTAto)” that.
. If Chávez would realize what he is up against then he would also have to see that Participatory Democracy is the only solution to his country’s problem.
. Another unfortunate fact is that power corrupts. His refusal to let go of it is going to fuel many more murders. Chávez still has the opportunity to help establish a real democracy in which the people make the decision by means of the proven consensus decision-making process. Once the timocrats are back in power, that opportunity is gone, as we have seen here in Canada and in Germany.
There are flaws in the “job-description” I have given in the September 2 and 5 sections. We don’t need the second table for which “I have to lend you my copy of Star’s Tao Te Ching.” We don’t need a three digit number to identify the 400 two digit identifiers. I have started to give you the information you need to do the 81 chapters in Ching for which I have given you chapter 13 as an example. That is one down 80 to go.
. If you are willing and able to do the job, you could get Jonathan Stars work on the Tao Te Ching and produce a Ching with the two digit identifiers instead of Chinese characters. Perhaps all of this work is unnecessary if we had Cinese word-processing software and instructions on how to use it. Until then, we have to get this syntactic (C) work done. I started to convey the 400 identifiers as follows. It may seem confusing but if you have Star’s book then it will all become clear.
Ai @A%0 An %h Ch’a âv Chan #b Chang #d Ch’ang Cn lg Chao @O ….
. I got right down to Huo(Üf) 15 pages down, 34 of the 51 pages to go. I moved the cursor on top of the INSERT for the Ü and my friendly Microsoft WORD marked the whole file. I didn’t click on DELETE. Who wants to delete half a day’s work? But my friendly Microsoft WORD did it anyway. Well, perhaps my shadow did it. It probably didn’t want me to do anymore of the work that is not my dharma because doing that is “dangerous (bhaya)”, as we are told at Gita 3.35..
. To calm down after that mistake I went out for a coffee, where I got The New York Times. When these things happen, I know it is synchronicity and I pay attention to it. Let me conclude this section with a nice idea that came to me about the Neiye: If you are
8a: “Able to Align (ab%8) yourself with those on the level above your’s then you
. . . Can be Tranquil (abb^a)”. And
8b: “Only Then Can you do the Fixing (Ja4Rab8b)”. and only then can you
8c: “Fix Hsin In to their Centers (8bHsÜp =)”. And then, with
0a: “Orderly Hsin In their Centers (85HsÜp =)”
0b: “Orderly Words Come-out From your Mouth (85C2to@l)”,
0c: “Orderly Tasks are Conferred to Other (85D20ctomn)” people
. . . to be carried out, and
0d: “Only Then (Ja18), if they are carried out, can those in
. . . Heaven and Below it be in Order (Tn -85) Yi(Yi)”.
0e: “One Word Grasped ( 1C2gt)”
0f: “And those in Heaven and Below it will Submit (btTn –Üz)”.
. In other words, if that “One Word” is Understood, then the thinkers (B), the communicators (C) and the pragmatists (D) will carry out the jobs that are conferred to them. What is that “One Word”? …
Which level does it come from? …
Before you can expect an answer you must ask the right question. …
===========================================
September 5, 2010
. In the September 2 section I said: “The time ‘KowErs(kner)’ (B) spent in the syntactic dimension of semiotics (C) is time they can’t spent in the semantic dimension (B).” Because the “WordErs(C2er)” (C) haven’t done their dharma, the jnana yogis (B) have to do it in order to do their own dharma.
. In a healthy society this problem wouldn’t arise: “And do thy duty [dharma], even if it be humble, rather than another’s even if it be great. To die in one’s duty is life: to live in another’s is death. (Gita 3.35 Juan Mascaró’s translation)”
. Because these things were known in ancient India, the Indian Caste System emerged naturally. But knowledge (B) is power, and the Brahmins (B) were entrusted with that power, and they abused that power. As a result “Intelligent strategies are produced, And great hypocrisies emerge.(*a^cCuYUTA*b Wing)”. *a = Hui61. *b = Wei9. These “Great Hypocracies (TA*b)” are described at Gita 18.41-44. And this is the kind of totalitarian system of government our political masters intend to establish after they have made their move. Please Google: protocols of zion division of labour
. The DIVISION of LABOUR works because of specialization. At the very beginning of his book, Lao Tzu says: “Actualize your Potential (A1pt)”! Because you can’t Actualize a potential you don’t have people naturally develop the potential they have. Doing what they are born to do gives people the greatest satisfaction. In a healthy society “the man naturally fitted to be a shoemaker, or carpenter, or anything else should stick to his trade (Plato’s Republic at 443c)”. If you are a carpenter, Are you going to learn to become a shoemaker and get the shoemaking equipment in order to satisfy the demand for shoes of your family? Stupid question. You already are a carpenter, you already have woodworking tools. So how do you satisfy your family’s demand for shoes? You make a workbench for the shoemaker and trade it for shoes. You make furniture for farmers and trade it for food. If these things are allowed to develop, they will develop naturally.
. Linda McQuaig has also described it nicely in her books. It simply makes sense to actualize the potential you were born with. Why is what Plato has taught in his Republic not taught in school? …
It takes a lot of social engineering to make the obvious seem “Ridiculous(*41)”.
. The demand of a customer (A) was called the “Job-description” in the original IBM computer programming system. If you understand that system then you also know why it had to “disappear”. The demand can also be called a wish-list.
. If I had the money, I would have the following wish-list. Please go to the previous September 2 section and look at the table of 81 two digit identifiers for the 81 Chinese characters which are in Ching 13. Look what a lousy job I did. With less effort, a “WordEr” who knows HTML can do a much better job. The columns would be neater. Some extra space would be between groups of five, some more space between groups of ten, instead of two groups of ten per line there could be three. You are the expert, you know better than I do what looks best. I want such a table for all of the 81 chapters of the Tao Te Ching. Some chapters are less than 30 characters long. They should fit on one line. Chapter numbers would be in front or in the middle of an otherwise blank line above each chapter. The definitions for the identifiers which start with an asterisk (*) follow the text. The whole thing should fit on less than eight pages. With these tables stored in you computer’s memory, you don’t need a concordance. I want the same thing done for the Neiye. Actually, if your prize is right, I would pay you for doing the Neiye job for me.
. Do I have something else on my wish-list? Yes. For hat one I have to lend you my copy of Star’s Tao Te Ching. Beside each entry in his concordance I have written its two digit identifier. But only for those characters which appear in more than one chapter. I want you to type them out in rows and columns. With column numbers on top of each column and line numbers beside each line. This idea comes from the NUMERICAL LIST OF RADICALS you get in Chinese dictionaries.
. Fit as many columns on a line as possible, or practical. The roughly 400 characters should fit on less than a page.
. Do I have something else on my wish-list? Yes. Now that we have these 400 characters numbered, I need a table were these numbers are followed by their phonetics and radical numbers, listed in lines and columns. We have already listed the phonetics and radical numbers for those identifiers which start with an asterisk in our first table. These are the characters which only appear in one chapter. So there is no need to clutter up the concordance with them. In our table we don’t need the equal sign (=). Again, you are the expert, you know what looks best.
. Do I have something else on my wish-list? Yes. Now that we have the phonetic and the radical number for each of the roughly 800 characters which are in the Ching. I want a phonetic dictionary for them. Because we have less than a thousand entries in our dictionary, it is handier and more useful than a regular dictionary. We can also do a better job of it.
. Do I have something else on my wish-list? Yes. The Chinese character look-up table. In an ordinary Chinese dictionary under many radicals are listed more than 200 entries. Again, you are the expert, you should be able to come up with a practical way of identifying the 400 characters, which appear in more than one chapter, more efficiently. I have already done some work on it but I have given up because this is not my dharma. It just didn’t feel right anymore. And I am glad that I didn’t invest more of my time and energy in a job that is not my dharma. However the ideas I came up with should be useful and could be used. Again, behind each character is its phonetic and radical number. The phonetic dictionary could include the characters which are in the Neiye as well. Because it is shorter than the Ching and most of the characters in it are already in the Ching, the entries in our dictionary should still not exceed one thousand.
. Do I have something else on my wish-list? Yes. I need a 50/50 partner to help me with my boat. I got the invention in 1964, have invested years of work, thousands of dollars, risked my life and health, build it in three sections in my bachelor apartment carted it on my bicycle trailer to the Rees St. Slip, at Harbour Front, Assembled it there on the floating dock on the West side of the slip, tried it, took a scary four hour kayak course, tried it again and it seems to me that I got it to plane. This could be wishful thinking. But if it is not, considering that my boat is two to three times as heavy as a regular kayak, this would be quite a feat.
. What is on my wish list now is for somebody to try it, or watch me demonstrate it, and to decide whether a 50/50 partnership with me it is worth his time and money.
. There could also be money for work done for the Ching and the Neiye but that depends on the willingness of those who benefit from our work to voluntarily pay us for it. The information would be posted on your or my website, your and my name and address would be listed along with the text with the request to make a donation to either you or me.
==================================================
September 2, 2010
. Working on the Neiye is less efficient than working on the Ching because I don’t have the benefit of Jonathan Star’s scholarly work. I really missed the concordance for the Neiye. But I had to follow Lao Tzu’s advise, working on it inductively, from the bottom up. It worked so well that I decided to do it more intentionally on the Ching as well. So I randomly opened a page and up came Ching 13.
*a$fJO*bKu .TA*cJOSêHO . is *a. $fJO*b . *a do.. – gt. Z . 01 to 20
JO*b37 Z JO .*b Si is *a $f . . JO*bHOisKu .TA*cJOSême . .21 to 40
SOYIYUTA*cerdomeYUSê . $gmeWUSême YuHO*cKUKu 41 to 60
YISêWUTn – JO pt *d Tn - . . %0 YI Sêdo.Tn. –JO pt*e Tn - .61 to 81
. *a = Ch’ung40. *b = Ching187. For this one I use J.Wu’s equivalent, “Pleasant-surprise”. *c = Huan61. *d = Chi40b. *e = T’o149.
In Star’s VERBATIM TRANSLATION this chapter takes up over two pages, one line per character. Each character is numbered, so you can find its two-digit identifier in the above table. I have used different concordances but, for me, Star’s scholarly work is the most useful one. Without it I couldn’t have done the work I did.
. One advantage of the two-digit identifiers is that you can identify the characters in a quote efficiently and you don’t have to give the chapter number every time because you can use the concordance to find it. If we had the Caracter Look-up Table it would make study of the Ching, and the Neiye, more efficient. And efficiency is important. The time the “KnowErs(kner)” (B) spent in the syntactic dimension of semiotics (C) is time they can’t spent in the semantic dimension (B). Once we understand the DIVISION OF LABOUR, we can be as efficient as our political masters are. Right now, without that understanding, what they are getting away with is unbelievable to us. And because it is unbelievable to us, they are getting away with it. Another reason is that the communicators (C) are working for their unelected advisors (B) instead of for us who have elected them.
. Now let us see what lessons we can find, and learn, in Ching 13. There Lao Tzu is commenting on an old saying:
1
“Welcome Disgrace As you would welcome a Pleasant-surprise (*a$fJO*b)
Value Great Trouble As you value your own Body (KuTA*cJOSê).”
2
“Why Say (HOis): Welcome Disgrace (*a$f)
As you would welcome a Pleasant-surprise (JO*b)? because WelcomIng(*ado) it puts you into a Lower( -) state of being. Getting into It (gt Z) is getting you out of certain ego-states, and this can be Like a Pleasant-surprise (JO*b), and Losing It (37 Z) can also be Like a Pleasant-surprise. That Is (Siis) why we should Welcome Disgrace As we would welcome Pleasant-surprises (*a$fJO*b).
Why Say (HOis): Value Great Trouble (KuTA*c)
As you value your own Body (JOSê)?
Because our body is the very source of our calamities. (meSOYIYUTA*c)
If we have no body (erdomeYUSê J.Wu) then I Have What Trouble (meYUHO*c)?
4
….” I will skip the last paragraph. This will hopefully cause you to get a few translations of the Tao Te Ching yourself so that you can work on it. Properly “Aligned Words Likely Reverse (%8C2JO$l)”. If you work on this amazing poetry then this amazing poetry will work on you. This is definitely one of the chapters which has been translated in the most diverse ways.
. Of the ten translations I have three have not broken down “Big chapters into Small (TAsm)” paragraphs. Two have divided it into two paragraphs and five have divided it into four paragraphs. I have joined that last group. Six have translated the first paragraph as one or two indicative sentences. Star has translated the first one as an imperative sentence and the second one as an indicative sentence, and three have translated both as imperative sentences. I have joined that last group. This doesn’t mean that they are right but it seems to me to be the most meaningful interpretation.
. In his VERBATIM TRANSLATION Star also “supplies an alternative to the entry found in the standard Wang Pi text”. Such an alternative is found at character #18, at the Wei(do). Three translators have used that alternative. Ellen M. Chen has:
“Honors elevate (shang),
Disgrace depress (hsia).” One Way this alternative has been used is to say something like this: Being honoured moves us up, emotionally being disgraced moves us down. Either way, we are moved by external events. This is contrasted by being unmoved by whatever good or bad fortune comes our way.
. The reason that most translators have translated the first two sentences as indicative sentences instead of imperative sentences is because many Chinese characters can be read as either nouns or verbs. Both translations are valid syntactically (C). We are now forced to enter the semantic dimension of semiotics to determine which translation makes more sense. And HOW you translate the first two sentences determines HOW you translate much of the rest of the chapter.
. The problem translators have with the first line is described nicely by Red Pine: “Commentators disagree about how to read line one; is ‘favor’ a verb and ‘disgrace’ its noun object (”favour disgrace as a warning.”), or are both nouns?” These questions arise with Chinese because it is not a phonetic language like English or Sanskrit. And that is good because it forces students to ask: Which one of the meanings of this character is demanded by the context?
. Take Ming(Mg) At Ching 47 it means “Identify(Mg)” that is not a dictionary definition but when the context demands it once, we have to try it on for size everywhere else. So not only do we have to ask whether to read a character as a noun or a verb or which one of its dictionary equivalents applies but also which meaning Lao Tzu has assigned to the character applies. This may sound intimidating, but with some practice your mind (C) does it for you in the syntactic dimension of semiotics (C) with Automatic Energy (E6). You are literally “Doing it Without Doing (doWUdo)” it.
. Leaving you to compare the various interpretations of the last paragraph and to determine which one makes most sense to you is definitely good ”Practice(pr)” for you.
. Referring to the last paragraph, Ellen M. Chen says ”To determine the meaning of these lines we ask: What is the central theme of this chapter? Is it how to deal with the issues of glory and disgrace and the fortunes and misfortunes the body is subject to, or is it about who is best qualified to govern the world? The central and predominant theme unifying the whole chapter is the former, not the latter. The translation of these last lines [the omitted last paragraph] is made in this spirit.”
. There we have a student of Lao Tzu who has learned how to ask the right questions and how to look for the answers in the right places.
. I have said before, that, when there are great discrepancies between different translators translating the same text then Lao Tzu has given his students some work to do. When there are alternatives to the standard text which three out of the ten translators have used then these alternatives are preserved because they are meaningful ”Enough(Zu)”.
. There is much more to be said about this chapter, I happened to pick, and I might come back to it, but ideally you do some work on it yourself. …
=======================================================
August 29, 2010
. In yesterday’s section are two errors: ”Only Then (Ja4R) can I do the Fixing (ab8b)”. “(Can(ab)” should have been capitalized. And “Enough(C2)” should have been “Enough(Zu)”. My shadow causes me to make these mistakes regularly. If you catch and correct them then you will benefit from these mistakes. So there is no need to mention them all the time. But, as I was looking for these mistakes, I came across two passages to which I want to add “Insights(72)” that came to me after reading them:
. “The harm which unwilling communicators (C) can do to our human system as a whole is serious,” Try to predict what I will say about this. …
To sabotage our attempts to establish demoracy, the social engineers don’t have to weaken all four classes of society. It suffices to concentrate on one. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. I have reasons to believe that our political masters have concentrated on the communicators (C). Money, and power over the dumbed down masses, is their “bait” Please Google: protocols of zion bait
That doesn’t mean that the politicians (C) are innocent. The decision to team up with their unelected advisors (B) and to sabotage democracy (A) is still theirs. They may play dumb but they still have to know what they are doing.
. Here is the other passage: . “If the poets (A) don’t step down their message far ‘Enough’ then the thinkers (B) [who are willing and able to do their dharma] can’t ‘Get([g]t)’ it. if the thinkers don’t step down their message far enough then the talkers (C) [who are willing and able to do their job] can’t ‘Get’ it and if ….” …
If the poets (A) have stepped down the truth in their poetry far “Enough”, as they did in the Gita, the Neiye and the Ching, then the “KnowErs(kner)” (B), who are willing and able, will “Get” it; if the poets have not stepped it down far “enough” then, in spite of having learned from Lao Tzu how to do it, they can’t do it. And, if I am unwilling to do the necessary work, then I will not get it no matter how far the truth is stepped down.
. What applies to jnana yoga (B), is analogous to raja (C) and karma (D) yoga. For instance, if a foreman (C) tells a worker (D) to do something the worker is “UnAble(PUab)” to do then the foreman should be fired; if he tells his worker to do something he is “Able” to do and the worker doesn’t do it then he should be fired.
. What level are you on? How does what I have said here apply to you? …
=================================================
August 28, 2010
. After I did the August 27 section, I went to the August 18 section because that’s what I wanted you to do. There I said: “You don’t have to understand the whole of the Ching or the Neiye to understand those parts of them which are about the tetrad.” Of course you have to understand the tetrad in order to know WHAT the poets are talking about.
. The same applies to other “Concepts(B2)”. As you study this amazing poetry, you start to understand a bit of it. This bit, in turn, helps you to understand other bits. For instance, Lao Tzu has many different Ways of saying: Don’t bite off more than you can chew, take it one bit at a time. You are learning to “Do it Without Biting (doWUdo)” off more than you can chew. For instance, you learn that Wei(do) can represent any verb the context demands.
. You learn Lao Tzu’s lessons by “Identifying(Mg)” questions he is asking and then by “Identifying” the answers he gives to your questions. But he wouldn’t be a good teacher if he spells out the questions and answers. You learn by seeking and asking the right questions. Seek and you shall find. Ask and you shall receive. I know now that this is true. You can’t have the seeking without the finding, you can’t have one pole of a polarity without the other. What I didn’t know is how long you have to seek and ask.
. You can reduce this time by following Lao Tzu’s advise. Let us return to the tetrad: In the Cing, A chapter consisting of four paragraphs or a paragraph consisting of four sentences is most likely a tetrad and they are all over the Ching. In the Neiye there is one in chapter 8. I have worked on that chapter already in the July 27 section but there can be no harm in looking at it again: If you are working on this amazing poetry, this amazing poetry will work on you.
. The first seven lines of Neiye 8 consist of four characters each. Here is the first one: “Able to Align, Able to be Tranqul (ab%8ab^a)”. The three lower case words are fillers Only the words starting with an upper case letter are in the original, they are equivalents of the Chinese characters in the sequence they come. We need the fillers to make the equivalents readable in English.
. Here come the first two lines with fillers and interpretations added:
a: If you are “Able to Align (ab%8) yourself with those on the level
. above your own then you will be Able to be Tranquil (ab^a)”.
b: And “Only Then will you be Able to do the Fixing (Ja4Rab8b)”.
. 4R = Hou30. 8b = Ting40.
. Let me give you an example of what these two lines mean to me: I am a Gemini, a mutable air sign. I am the connective between the fixed fire signs and the cardinal air signs. The mutable signs are like the receiving department of a company. The cardinal signs are like the manufacturing departments, there the real art (A), thinking (B), talking (C) and work (D) is done. And the fixed signs are like the shipping department.
. Because of the Law of Correspondence, what is true for me is analogout to what is true for you. If you are a water sign (C) then What is A for me, is B for you and what is C for me is D for you. I am in the “Center( =)” of the A-B-C “TriAd( 3ad)” and you are in the “Center” of the B-C-D triad. The “Monads($1)”, A, B, C and D, are different, but the triads are the same.
. In order to do my dharma, I have to “Align(%8)” with the Poets (A) on the level above my own. To do this I have to study their poetry, the way I am doing it here in this blog. To feel right about what I am doing, to feel this “Tranquility(^a)”, The poetry has to be right. If there is no truth in it then I can’t “Get(gt)” it from there. And if the truth is in there then I have to step down the Conscious Energy (E4) to Sensitive Energy (E5) so that I can understand it. I can’t take this first step if I am not “Able to Align” myself with A. “If I didn’t come across the Neiye, and if Roth hadn’t included the original text with his translation, then I couldn’t study it now
. The same is true for communicators. …
If the truth, which when known by a critical mass will set us free, is nowhere to be found then they have a valid excuse for not doing their dharma. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. The harm, which unwilling communicators (C) can do to our human system as a whole is serious, but “WordErs Don’t seem to Know (C2erPUkn)” that.
. Nobody who is unwilling or unable to “Align himself with the center above his own is Able to be Tranquil (%8ab^a)”. To feel satisfied with yourself, you have to align yourself with the center above your own and bring the message from that level down to your own.
. Only after I have stepped down E4 to E5, and I understand the truth which is in that poetry, “Only Then (Ja4R) can I do the Fixing (ab8b)”. Everybody’s dharma consist of three steps: “Aligning” yourself with the center above your own, doing your own thing with it, and doing the “Fixing(8b)”. What is this “Fixing”? …
In my case it is the stepping down of Sensitive Energy (E5) to Automatic Energy (E6). The communicators (C) can’t understand my thoughts (B), I have to describe them to the communicators in words (C). This is what I am trying to do here in this blog. Only if they are explained clearly “Enough(C2)”, “Only Then (Ja4R)” can the communicators understand it. If not then the “WordErs Can’t Understand (C2erPUkn)” it.
. Explaining ideas well is a problem for thinkers (B) because thinkers are not communicators (C). “KnowErs are Not good with Words (knerPUC2)”. This is a problem on all levels. “WordErs” (C) are not good with their hands and doers (D) are not good with words or thinking. They prefer to solve problems by trial and error. So we all have our strengths and weaknesses. That is why a healthy society needs the DIVISION OF LABOR. Even our political masters know that. Just Google: protocols of zion division of labour
. When the sound of the trumped is uncertain who shall muster for battle? This problem exists on all four levels of Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)”. However the division of labor works because of our differences of “natural aptitudes” This phrase is all over the Republic. I think that Plato has given the best introduction to the division of labour.
. If the poets (A) don’t step down their message far “Enough” then the thinkers (B) can’t “Get(t)” it, if the thinkers don’t step down their message far enough then the talkers (C) can’t “Get” it and if the communicators don’t explain what has to be done clearly enough, then the doers (D) don’t know what to do.
. Now, If I don’t do my job properly then C and D can still do their job properly but the job, as intended at A doesn’t get done. The same goes for C and D. A and B can do a perfect job but if C or D does a poor job then the original idea which came into this world through the poets does not get manifested on earth, the will of the creator is not done on earth.
. My job, as a thinker is to convey the truth from A to C. If the theory (B) is true then it will work in practice (D). And it is the job of the communicators (C) to make sure that it does. They might have to expand this blog into a book to make what I have said here comprehensible to a critical mass. Why? …
==========================================================================
August 27, 2010
. On page 63 of THE DRAMATIC UNIVERSE the description of the ENNEAD starts. The system before that is the OCTAD. Its “Systemic Attribute: [is] COMPLETENESS” On page 63 J. G. Bennett said: “Completeness is not the answer to all problems concerning our experience. It does not take account of situations in which completion is impossible because of the very nature of existence.” Existence is DRAMATIC because the outcome of this experiment is uncertain. And to “allow for uncertainty and hazard and yet reach a harmonious structure”, we need the ENNEAD.
. Because I have studied Systematics before I came across the Neiye, I paid attention to the “Nine” at 4G (Neiye 14. line G). Neiye 14 consists of two ENNEADS with a TETRAD between them.
. Harold D. Roth doesn’t often subdivide chapters into paragraphs but at Neiye 10 he did it. There we have nine lines divided into 4 + 4 +1. 4 + 4 = 8. That is the OCTAD. 8 + 1 is the ENNEAD Bennett is talking about and that is the ENNEAD we have in Neiye 10.
. In the first line Roth has “Mind(Hs)” for Hsin(Hs). In my translation of Neiye 10, which I did in the August 18 section, I have followed Roth by translating Hsin(Hs) in the singular. Its dictionary equivalents are: “Heart, mind; center”. When studying the Neiye or the Ching, we must always pay attention to all equivalents of a Chinese character. The question must be: Does the context demand one particular equivalent in English or are all of them?
. At te end of the first paragraph we have I(Yi): “A final particle denoting that the sense has been fully expressed. (4312)”. What has been “fully expressed” at Neiye 4Q-T is only hinted at here. But the I(Yi) tells us that we have a complete tetrad in the first paragraph. We should have the A-B-C “ TriAd( 3ad), which is the Hsin(Hs), plus the body (D). Our intellect (B) is in the “Center” between A and B.
. Because of the work I have done on the Neiye since August 18, I can see now that translating Hsin(Hs) in singular was a mistake. Here is my update:
0a: With “Orderly Hsins In their Centers (85HsÜp =), ….”. For the rest of the chapter I can leave well enough alone.
=========================================================
August 25, 2010
. In the August 23 section, I gave a number of different translations of 3B (Neiye 13, line B). Here is another one that came to me this morning:
B: “One pole Goes and the other One Comes ( 13B 1äz)”.You can’t have the one pole of the “DyAd(dyad)” without the other “One”. Here is another translation of the same four characters that came to me just now:
B: “One Goes, the other One Comes.” When the “BigTao(TAA1)” goes at birth the individual Tao is born. Please remember that this is untested theory (B) only:
. The Tao, which is separated from the whole, must be the “Heart(Hs)”, it is on level A of Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)”. On level C is the “Mind” (C), and in the “Center( =)”, between A and C, is our intellect (B) and our body (D) is the Aristotelian “material cause”. Its effect is at E8.
. These are our four “Centers( =).” If even one of them doesn’t work properly then the whole of us doesn’t work properly. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. That is the message we get from Neiye 11, if we learn how to read it from Lao Tzu. The same message is at 8m (chapter 8 line m): There we get:
8m: “Bypass Know Lose Production (#ikn37Sg).” What does that mean? …
8m: If you “Bypass even one of the four Known boundaries then there will be a Loss of Production (#ikn37Sg)”.
. Why did the poet leave out these “Known” details? …
The details are there but not all in the same chapter. The details are “Repeated(@1)” but not the same words. I mean, isn’t Neiye 14 lines Q to T good “Enough”? …
. There are two reasons why we can’t expect “Concepts(B1)” to be spelled out the Way I have interpreted 8m. One is, that details can’t be spelled out in poetry as they can be in prose. The interpretations the “KnowErs(kner)” add to the poetry destroys the metre and the rhyme.
“True Words are Not necessarily Beautiful (09C2PU%b;
.Beautiful Words are Not necessarily True (%bC2PU09)”. In other words, poetry is not prose. The other reason is …
================================================
August 23, 2010
. At 3B (Neiye chapter 13, line B.) the poet said:
B: “One Go One Come ( 13B 1äz)”. Roth has:
B: “One moment it [the “numinous [mind]”] goes, the next it comes”.
. Semantically (B) this is correct, this is likely what was meant (B) but syntactically it is incorrect. It is not what was said. I could use Roth’s the translation of first two characters in my translation but not for the next two. In the August 21 section I had:
B: “One moment it Goes; One moment it Comes” for the four characters.
. This version is more satisfying in the syntactic dimension of semiotics (C) but less satisfying than Roth had it in the semantic dimension (B). In fact, it is less satisfying for jnana yogis (B) because they work in the semantic dimension with Sensitive Energy (E5). So changing a better translation to an inferior one went against my grain, but my word for word type of translation forced me to do it. But following Roth is not the only choice I have. All my style demands is that I use a capitalized equivalent of a character in the sequence they come, but fillers or interpretations don’t follow that rule. As long as the student know WHAT is in the original text, I can say anything I want to say. Please try to interpret the four characters to satisfy the demands of semantics. …
B: At “One point in time, the numinous mind Goes; at One point in time it Comes”.
. What question arises from all of these translations? …
How come the luminous mind “Goes” before it “Comes”? …
First of all what is this “Spirit($c)” we have in line A? …
Please go to the August 21 section to answer this question. Let us look the Ching:
6.1,1: The “Valley Spirit($c) does Not Die”. So it “Goes” away but does not die. Wing has an excellent commentary on this chapter: “Lao Tzu uses the image of the valley as a metaphor for the human perception of reality. The boundaries of the valley obscure the view of the source of creation beyond: the Absolute. The ‘gateway[%1]’—the Tao—leads from the source of creation into the valley where its actions become visible in worldly affairs”. Can you see that Wing has practically answered our question? …
Where is the “One” point in our existence at which Shên($c) “Goes” away? …
At birth. Is there a means by which we can get it to “Come” back? …
The Neiye has a clear answer for it: It is by “Inward Training (Nei-yeh)”.
In yesterday’s section I said: “This 4-fold process, which we can observe in the outer world, has been described in Neiye 10”. In the August 15 section, I have given a translation of it. But instead of calling it chapter 10, I have called it chapter 8. This probably means that my shadow wants to draw our attention to it. The description in chapter 10 is much more “Subtle(Jo)” than the one in chapter 14. But it is there. “SubtleTy, Tao’S Usefulness (JoadA1 Zus)”. Please go to the August 15 section and try to figure it out. …
1A: If your “Body is Not Aligned (@kPU%8)”
1B: then your “Té will Not Come (TĚPUäz)”.
. We are told here that Té can’t manifest on the material level (D) if our “Body is Not Aligned” with our mind (C). So far so good but then I said in the August 15 section that
“Té will Not Come”. If the three minds are not in their own “Center”. That was a mistake. Maybe that’s what my shadow wanted to draw my attention to. …
There are three Hsings(Hs) in us and four centers. The highest is our soul (A). It is in the “Center( =)” between Crative Energy (E3) and our intellect (B). B is in the “Center between A and C, C is in the center between B and D and D is in the center between C and E8. E3 is above and E8 is below Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)”. B is Gurdjieff’s “intellectual center”, C is his “emotional center” and D is his “moving center”.
1C: If your four “Centers are not aligned then they Can’t be Tranquil ( =PU^a)” Why? …
1D: Because your three “Hsings are Not in Order (HsPU85)”.
. The first four lines are three characters long each. Isn’t it amazing how much can be said with a dozen words?
. Why does the author, who is speaking through the poets only blame three of our four centers for our misery? …
Because s/he has already blamed our “moving center” in the first two lines. All four centers can’t be “Tranquil(^a)” If they are not properly aligned to the center above their own. If your lower centers don’t align themselves with the higher centers they can’t be tranquil. They are not doing what they came here to do and deep down they know it. They try to drown their conscience with booze, dope it with drugs, distract it with fun and games, cure it by paying fortunes to psychologists but once a person realizes that none of these escapes works s/he might commit suicide.
. If you don’t do what you came here to do, what are you doing here? …
The next line is an imperative sentence. To which center(s) is it addressed? …
To the A-B-C triad. A must be “Aligned(%8)” to E3, B to A and C to B. If one of them doesn’t function properly no proper instructions can be given to D.
. As you can see, we must do our homework if we want to understand this poetry. And Laoo Tzu is teaching us the Way, or HOW, to study it.
. Harold D. Roth is wondering why the Tao Te Ching made it big and the Nei Yeh didn’t. When you see the accuracy and clarity in the Neiye, you can’t help wondering about it yourself. I think there are two reasons: Lao Tzu has not only addressed the “KnowErs(kner)” but the “WordErs(C2er)” as well. By watering down the message to the level at which they could understand it, they have popularized the Ching. The Neiye is cut and dry: You either do the exercises or you don’t. But Neiye 14 is evidence that the jnana yogis are not entirely forgotten.
. The more I study this amazing poetry, the more convinced I become that an omniscient Creator, using Creative Energy (E3), is conveying his message, through the poets (A), to the rest of us. Philosophers can’t come up with something as amazing as that. Without properly studying it, they can’t even understand it.
. The love (philos) of truth (Sopia) will motivate people to seek it and help us to find it but a degree in philosophy is more than likely closing the “Door, Dasamadwara (Sutra 13 of THE HOLY SCIENCE)” to it. Derrida is a good example of these professors with an honorary degree from Cambridge University, in spite of valid objections against it.
==============================================
August 22, 2010
. People, like Eckhart Tolle, Ken Wilber and those who have had near death experiences have written books about their “direct experiences”. These descriptions are like different translations of the same Standard Text of the Tao Te Ching.
. HOW to evaluate different translations is taught by Lao Tzu but HOW do you evaluate these descriptions of what the writers believe to be the “One( 1)” truth? …
. As there is one outer reality, we can see and touch, so there has to be an inner reality we can’t see and touch but which must be “One”. Why? …
Three of the four steps described from 4Q to 4T (Neiye 14 lines Q to T) are invisible. From the construction business and from computer programming we know that there have to be three nonmaterial steps before the final step, the Aristotelian “material cause”, can be taken. This 4-fold process, which we can observe in the outer world, has been described in Neiye 10 and most accurately at Neiye 14.3,4Q-4T:
. If there is no “Intent(4Q)” (A) then there can be no “Form(@k)”. This is the Aristotelian “formal cause”
. If there is no “Form” (B, no thought) then there can be no “Word(C2)” And
If there are no verbal (C) instructions there can be no “Execution(%e)”
. St. John starts on level C: “In the beginning was the word and ….the word was made flesh” (D).
. As B must “Align(%8) itself with A so C must “Align” itself with B. And as C must align itself with B so D must align itself with C. If the instructions according to which the world is created do not correspond to the idea (B) which is “Intended” (A) to be manifested, or if the instructions (C) are not carriedout (D), or not carried out properly then, obviously, the world can’t be the “One” we can all see and touch.
. The Aristotelian “material cause” (D) must correspond to the “final cause” (A), the original “Intent”, from which everything else follows.
. How is it possible that such an accurate description of this 4-fold process could be given in Neiye 14 over 2300 years ago? …
The answer is “Inner Training (Nei-yeh)”. Most of the Neiye is about that. Neiye 14 is merely an example of the results of that training.
. The inner training which is given in the Ching is different from the training which is given in the Neiye. Lao Tzu is primarily addressing “KnowErs(kner)”, philosophers or jnana yogis. The training given in the Ching is different from the training given in the Neiye because jnana yoga (B) is different from the other three yogas. Each yogi must follow his or her own path. The instructions which are right for one yogi can be wrong for another yogi.
. The outer training jnana yogis must engage in is gaining a direct experience of N-Term systems. Of those the tetrad is the best example. The 4-fold processes can be observed in the construction business but it can be better understood by means of the original IBM computer processing system.
. There is a reason for why it had to “disappear”. Can you see it? …
=================================================
August 21, 2010
. At Ching 63.1,4-5 Lao Tzu says: Make Big Small (TAsm)! Many Few (TO$q)”!
These two imperative sentences can also be read as one indicative sentence, …
If you do it then you make “Many sentences Few”. Please try! …
You are not going to learn your lessons if you don’t do the “Practice(pr)”. …
Anyone can read the answers somebody else has come up with. But …
HOW do you know that they are right without doing your own thinking? …
If you break down “Big chapters into Smaller paragraphs then you are making Many words Few.” Or you can say: If you break down …
“Big paragraphs into Smaller sentences then you are making Many words Few.”
Or you can start your sentence with “Big” sentences. You can even start with words. But the breaking it down means using the dictionary or the concordance. So instead of saying “break it down” you can say : Simplify the Big by concentrating on its Smaller” parts. Notice what Lao Tzu is doing here: …
He is saying “More” with “Less”. But he does spell it out at 63.1,8: “Reach the Big From The Small (doTAto Häl)”! Hsi(äl) is the picture of a “Big field broken down into four Smaller” ones. But the word also means “Small”. So how can Lao Tzu make it any clearer for us? I’m not even putting the three dots behind this one.
. But there are limitations as to how far you can break things down in the syntactic dimension of semiotics (C) without loosing the content of a larger group of words in the semantic dimension (B). It wouldn’t be fair to those readers, or potential students, who don’t know “Enough(Zu)” systematics, to put the three dots behind the above statement.
. Lao Tzu says in chapter 39: The total “Sum of the “Individual($0)” parts of a Cart is Not-the-whole Cart ($0#5âsWUâs)”. If Lao Tzu wanted to say only “Not(PU)”, he would have said it but he said Wu(WU) instead. Students of Lao Tzu must pay attention to seemingly unimportant detail. What is he saying here? …
In other words, in all N-Term systems the whole …
is greater than the sum of its parts. For instance, the parts of “The TriAd (Tz 3ad) are ImPossible(PUpt) to Individually Analyze ($0*a)”. *a = Chieh149: “To examine ….”, “To keep in order (6062)”
. This brings us back to Neiye 14.1, in which we have three “TriAds( 3ad)”. Let us concentrate on the first two lines of first “TriAd”. They form the “DyAd(dyad)”: The Tao is “Universal(4B)”. It is omnipresent. What does that mean? …
It means that this same triad, with the dyad in front and the monad at the end is also universal. In theory, we should be able to find other triads which correspond to this one. The Law of Correspondence is “Universal”. There are, for instance, six examples of this particular “TriAd” at Ching 2.2. If you have Harold D. Roth’s ORIGINAL TAO, try to find this triad in the Neiye. …
Actually, we don’t have to go very far, we already have an example of this very same triad at Neiye 13.1,A-C:
A: “There-is a Numinous [mind] Naturally residing Within (YU$cTuÜp)”.
B: “One moment it Goes; One moment it Comes ( 1 3B 1äz)”. But
C: “There-is-no-one Who is Able to Conceive (MO Zab8i)” of it.
. 3B = Wang60. It is also in Ching 35.
. Now please compare this with Neiye 14.1,A-C. …
Analogous doesn’t mean identical. It means that the triads are the same, but what they represent is different. For instance all of the six triads in Ching 2.2 are the same one we have here but, as you can see, the details are different.
. Now, when you compare Neiye 14.1,A-C with 13.1,A-C you will find that these two triads are much more similar than any two triads in Ching 2.2.
. Ideally, you will do the work I am doing here yourself. It is essentially what Lao Tzu tells his students to do. The best use you can make of my work is to use it as an example.
. You don’t learn to think be reading (C) about it; you learn to think by thinking (B). “Practice(pr)” “Makes(do)” “Perfect(cm)”.
. How close is Neiye 13.1,A related to 14.1,A? …
If the “Numinous($c)” mind is on level A then the two sentences are very closely related. My dictionary-concordance gives me: “$c Shên113 06 29 39 60”.Now you can use the phonetic and radical number and find the character in a dictionary. I normally use C. H. Fenn’s THE FIVE THOUSAND DICTIONARY. Most characters are in there. So we get: “Deity, divine, God; spirit ….”. This could mean that the “Nouminous” mind is the Tao which is “In People” and the “Big Tao” is inside and outside of us.
The equivalents for Shên($c) we get from Star are: “Sacred, soul, spirit, divine, transcendent.” As far as I can see, the most meaningful equivalent is “soul” (A). It would be the individual self, the Atman translated as “self”. If that is so then the Atman translated as “Self” would be the “Big Tao (TAA1)”. Nice theory (B), but it still has to be tested, and the texts don’t support it clearly “Enough(Zu)”.
. Whether the texts support this theory or not, you have here an example of HOW to work on this amazing poetry. …
==========================================
August 20, 2010
. When I came home yesterday, just when I was going to step into the lobby of our building, a fellow tenant was wheeled out on a stretcher. I didn’t know her personally, but we were acquainted enough to greet each other. She looked very sick, I may never see her again.
. Two years ago, when I moved in here, there were no cell-phone towers on top of our building. It’s smart to put these towers on senior buildings because any premature death can be blamed on old-age. It is not an opinion but a statistical fact that people, who are living near cell-phone towers, die earlier than others, who are living further away from them. When these towers are put right on top of your building, it is not a question of whether the microwaves effect you or not, but the question is, by how much is your life shortened because of them.
. Something is wrong when people get away with shortening the lives of others without having to consult them. Something is “Not in Order (PU85)”. And if there is
U: “No Order then, Necessarily, there will be Disorder (PU85PI$a)”. And
V: when there is “Disorder there Will be Death ($a$p78).”
. Isn’t it nice when the theory, you have just put out, is verified that same day? Well, I am not so sure. But I know that I have to get out of here. The problem, right now, is money and energy.
. I took a four hour kayak course. Our instructor put me in a kayak that had less stability than my own boat. And I took that course because I felt too uncomfortable in mine. Since I survived, I should now feel more comfortable in my boat. Why am I not taking it out now? Same problem, lack of energy.
. Having to do work with Sensitive Energy (E5) that should be done with Automatic Energy (E6) wastes a lot of energy. Still I am very glad that I did the work on Neiye 14. That chapter, more than any other one, has given me the reassurance that all is well, in spite of the evidence to the contrary. To feel that “Calmness(%H)” on the one side and to see the increasing “Disorder($a)” on the other, is necessarily paradoxical.
. When working on this poetry, but especially on a chapter like Neiye 14 you can see that God must be omniscient because part of this knowledge has come from E3, through A, to B. How do I know that? …
Because no Philosopher (B), no matter how smart, can produce something as brilliant as this poetry. At least not by him or herself. Take the first paragraph of Neiye 14: My guess was right: It is an Ennead. J. G. Bennett as written a lot about it. Too much for me to read, but there is something on page 63 of Volume 3 which I found worth quoting: “So long as no other element is involved, all the requirements of education can be satisfied by the structure. If, however, we suppose that man has to serve some purpose, unconnected either with his personal life and fulfilment, or with the necessities and ideals of the human totality, then we can no longer construct an educational system from the eight elements alone.” In other words, we need the Ennead to put our educational system back in “Order(85)”. To find out HOW to do that, we need specialists who know as much or more about the Ennead as I know about the tetrad. The same goes for the coder who can put an emulator of the IBM 1401 machine language on top of computer chip hardware. The algorithm is relatively simple. It consists of a main-driver in which the computer always looks for commands which come from the keybord. Instructions are typed on a line-processor. To execute them is another command. Compared to the programmes that can be written in that language, the emulator is simple. So here the coding (C) is the tough part.
. Let us get back to “the first paragraph of Neiye 14”. The Ennead consists of three “TriAds ( 3ad)”. We know that there are three triads in the first nine lines because the middle one is easily “IdentifiAble (ptMg)”. It is a =+- triad. The “One( 1)” is the “Monad($1)” and the other two impulses are the “DyAd(dyad)”. It is not always easy to see which one of these two is the “Positive( +)” pole and which is the (Negative( -)” one, but here it has been spelled out.
. As the middle triad is the connective beteen the other two triads, so the tetrad is the connective between the two Enneads. So the chapter is a triad. We are getting into heavy systematics that goes above my head, but we can all add up these numbers.
============================================
August 19, 2010
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NeiYeh chapter 14. It’s long and tough.
Lao Tzu says: Break down “Big chapters into Small (TAsm)” paragraphs. He says: Don’t bite off more than you can chew. When it comes to a tough chapter like this one, that advise must be followed. So if a paragraph is still too tough, break it down again. And, if a sentence is still too tough, break it down again until you get down to the words in it. Compound Chinese characters can again be broken down into “simples”, or the components which make up the character. When following Lao Tzu, there is no time for confusion but there is always lots of productive work to be done.
. Whatever work can be done efficiently should be done efficiently. Which means in practice: …
Use computation (C) instead of thinking (B). But there is a catch to it. …
If the programming is not done by you but by others, and social engineers are very good at that, then more harm can be done than good.
. Computation is much faster than thinking. Before the intellect (B) can even start to think, The mind (C) is already done with its computation. Aristotle called level C of Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)” the “efficient cause” because that’s what it is. Our mind uses Automatic Energy (E6) which is much faster than Sensitive Energy (E5), which the intellect uses.
. With some “Practice(pr)” we can automatically “Identify IdentifiAble (MgptMg)” divisions in a chapter. The first nine lines of Neiye 14 are all four characters long.
. The next two lines are each six characters long and the two following lines are five characters each. 2 + 2 = 4. The symmetry can be automatically “Identified” as a tetrad.
. The last nine lines are of various length, but looking at the overall symmetry, we see two paragraphs of nine lines each with the tetrad between them.
. I will comment after each of the first two paragraphs and then again after the next three lines because after these three lines we have five lines each if which has four characters in it and then the last line of the chapter has three characters in it. So here we go: The
. A: “Tao Fills all in Heaven and Below (A14ATn -)” it. It is
B: “Universal, In People and in What (4BÜpMnSO)” is around them. But
C: “People are UnAble to Understand (MnPUabkn)” this. What is missing here?
. D: “One Word. It Releases ( 1C2 Z#q).
E: “Up it Reaches To Heaven ( +4EtoTn)” and
F: “Down it Stretches To Earth ( -4FtoTI)”.
.. G: “You pervade the nine inhabited regions (Roth)”.
H: “What Does Release It (HOdo#q Z)” mean? The answer is
I : “Within you, it comes From the Hsin which is Calm (ÜptoHs%h).
. 4A = Man85. 4B = P’u72. 4E = Ch’a; “Officially examine, investigate”.
. The first triad, line A to C, could refer to the omnipotence, the omnipresence and the omniscience of God. “People are UnAble to Know” it all, but God can.
. As I keep saying: These are untested theories (B). Jnana yogis (B) put them out to have them tested. Just because we get ideas, it doesn’t mean that they are true..
. The second triad can be identified as the =+- one. We know from Ching 25.3 that “Heaven(Tn)” is on level B, “Earth(TI)” is on level D and here we are told that this “One Word, Which can Release” us from oppression, comes from between levels B and D.
. The Poets can expect Chinese readers to know the symbolism of Chinese characters. Some are even given in dictionaries. The symbolism can also serve us as mnemonics. In order not to bite off more than I can chew, I will only deal with the symbolism which is obvious.
. Shang( +) in line E has a vertical line in it. The horizontal line below the vertical line represents Earth. The little marker in the middle of the vertical line marks where “Humanity(%5)” is at.
. Hsia( -) looks like a T. The horizontal line on top represents “Heaven(Tn)”. The little marker in the middle of the vertical line marks where “Humanity” is at.
. The Tao(A1) is above “Heaven” (B). It is on level A. As we are told in lines E and F, “Heaven” is above that “One Word” and “Earth” is below it. So “Word” is? …
On level C. Wang( E) is in Ching 25.3. It has the vertical line in it we have in Shang and Hsia and all three horizontal lines are there as well: Heaven on top, humanity in the middle and earth on the bottom.
. Rudolf Steiner’s PHILOSOPHY of FREEDOM came to mind. To grasp the content of lines D to F we have to know WHAT our freedom of choice is and HOW to use it intelligently and responsibly. But what is in this triad takes us beyond that. Let me conclude this line of thought with a question: What does it mean to be the connective between heaven and earth?
. The “nine inhabited regions” in line G could refer to the places “In “Which(SO)” People (ÜpMnSO)” are, it could also refer to the nine lines in this first paragraph or it could refer to the Ennead, the nine term system. The other two lines are self-explanatory. They lead up to the next paragraph. At this point we can’t translate Hsin(Hs) as “Heart(Hs)” (A), as intellect (B) or as “Mind(Hs)” (C) because it is not clear yet which one of the three is the “Calm” one. But try to guess anyway because that will prepare you for the next paragraph. …
The part of us that is most detached from life’s ups and downs is our innermost part, our soul (A), or the “Heart(Hs)”. If the intellect (B) can “Align(%8)” itself with this calm part of us, it will be calmed. And if the mind (C) can “Align” itself with the calmed intellect, it will be calmed as well. Now let us see if this speculation did us any good. …
J: If “Your Mind is in Order then Your Senses Will be in Order (meHs854J$p85)”.
K: If “Your Mind is Calm then Your Senses Will be Calmed (meHs%h4J$p%h)”.
L: This “Ordering Thing, what is “It( Z)” (85 Zer)? it is Hsin Yeh (HsYe)”.
M: This “Calming Thing, what is “It( Z)” (%h Zer)? it is Hsin Yeh (HsYe)”.
. 4J = Kuan40. It is in Ching 28 but the equivalent I have used here is from Roth.
. We still don’t know which one of the three possible equivalents for Hsin(Hs) is the right one. This must now be explained in the last paragraph. Get ready. …
N: “Hsin is a Means to Store a Hsin”: In
O: “Hsin’S Center Again There-is a Hsin (Hs Z =@1YUHs) How-come(HO)?”
P: “That Hsin’S Hsin is an Intention (4PHs ZHs4Q)
. . . By which it Precedes Word (YI^7C2)
. 4P = Pi60. 4Q = I or Yi61. 4R = Hou30
. The “Heart’s” intention” precedes the intellect, it gets the thought going and the intellect gets the mind going. So A gets B going and B gets C going. In other words: B’s intention is A’s “Means to Precede Word (YI^7C2)”. Now, then, how do you explain that in poetry? Watch. When there is
Q: “Intention [A] Only Then can come Form (4QJa4R@k)”. When there is
R: “Form [B] Only Then can come Word (@kJa4RC2)”. When there are
S: “Words [C] Only Then can they be Executed (C2Ja4R%e)”. When they are
T: “Executed [D] Only Then can there be Order (%eJa4R85)” If there is
U: “No Order then, Necessarily, there will be Disorder (PU85PI$a)”. And
V: when there is “Disorder there Will be Death ($a$p78).”
This isn’t a very cheerful conclusion of this demanding line of thought. But if that’s the Way it is, what else can you say. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If one link is weak, or broken, the system can’t work at full capacity, or not at all.I suspect that our political masters already know that. If so then why don’t they want us to know it? …
===============================================
August 18, 2010
. In the August 15 section She(8E) should be She(1E). There are more mistakes like that, but so little work has been done on the Neiye, it doesn’t really matter.
At the end of that same section I said that I can think of two reasons why the poets say so little and leave so much to interpretation. One reason is of a practical nature: …
If you fill in the missing details, or stop reading and start thinking when you see the three dots at the end of the line, then you will know from personal experience that you will benefit from the work you do. If you work on this kind of poetry, the poetry will work on you. Properly “Aligned Words Likely Reverse (%8C2JO$l)”.
. When we know the tetrad, not just in theory (B) but from personal experience by working in the construction business or from using the original IBM computer programming system, then, when we can see that the poets are talking about it, we can use the deductive approach of problem solving. And then we can fill in the missing details. Deduction doesn’t work when you don’t already know what the poets are talking about. This is why, at Ching 63, Lao Tzu is teaching the inductive approach of problem solving.
. The other reason is of a theoretical nature: …
When writing in poetry, you have to stick to a certain metre and try to make words rhyme. This is why you can’t always include details you can always give in prose. Poetry also gets around preconceived ideas (B) and firmly established representations, or beliefs, (C), which writers (C) tend to include in their prose.
. Eight characters in Ching 47 can be rendered in metre and rhyme as J.Wu has done
“The farther you go ( HCuäE$t),
.The less you know ( HknäEsm).”
. Notice what the poetry adds to the message. The Carus – Suzuki team have made a valiant effort to retain the poetry wherever possible. Necessarily some accuracy is lost, but, I think that, the effort was well worth it.
. At Neiye 11 the first four lines are three characters long each and, by giving the phonetics of the last character in each line, Roth has shown how they rhyme. Being so restricted by the rules of poetry, it is amazing that the poets can make any sense at all. What the poets must assume, however, is that “KnowErs(kner) already know WHAT the poetry is about.
. Once you know the tetrad from Ching 25, where it has been described in detail, it becomes easier to see it elsewhere in the Ching or the Neiye. Take Neiye 10:
With an
0a: “Orderly Mind In you Center (85HsÜp +)” between level B and D,
0b: “Orderly Words Come-out From your Mouth (85C2Cu@l)”,
0c: “Orderly Tasks are Assigned To Other(85D20ctomn)” people to be carried out. And
0d: “Only Then, when they are carried out, will those in
. . . Heaven and Below (Ja18Tn -) it (B, C and D) be in Order Yi (85Yi).”
0e: “One Word Grasped ( 1C2gt)”
0f: “And all in Heaven and Below (on level B, C and D) it will Submit (btTn –Üz).”
0g: “One Word Fixed ( 1C28b)”
0h: “And all in Heaven and Below it will Listen (btTn -0h)” understand and carry it out.
0i: “This One-word Explains-it-all Yeh (Tz ZisYe).”
. Ting(8b) appears in chapter 8 line b. It also appears in Ching 37. But because it only appears in one chapter it has no two-digit identifier assigned to it. It is a keyword. It’s picture is “Alignment(%8)” under a “Roof (Rad. 40)”. It is the stepping “Down( -)” of the energy of the level above your own to the energy of the level below your own so that those on that level, who are willing to listen to you, will also be able to understand it.
. “Alignment(%8)” is the reaching “Up( +)” to the level above your own. After you “Got(gt)” your message, you are “Fixing(8b)” it, so that those, who are on the level below you, can align themselves with you.
. Doing that is doing your dharma. When you do it right, you get the feeling of bliss (Ananda, in Sanskrit). And this seems to be the “Tranquility(^a)”, we get in the Ching and the Neiye. It is another keyword.
. As I keep saying: These are theories only. Jnana yogis (B) put them out to be tested by other yogis, who are more qualified to test them than those who produce them are.
. By analogy, the “KnowErs who are Not good with Words (knerPUC2)” are more qualified to test the statements of the “WordErs who Don’t Know (C2erPUkn)” how to test their own words properly.
. You don’t have to understand the whole of the Ching or of the Neiye to understand those parts of them which are about the tetrad. These parts can be understood best by getting a direct experience of the 4-fold process. Because of the Law of Correspondence, these experiences correspond directly with what the poets (A), and philosophers, like Aristotle, have said about them. This is why the designers of the IBM computer programming system have used the Aristotelian tetrad for it. Can you see why our political masters don’t want us to understand it? ….
======================================================
August 15, 2010
. In the previous two sections I have quoted Ching 42.1. It is a very abstract, numeric, deductive, top down cosmology. The “Tao Produces the One (A1Sg 1)”. The One( 1) is the “Monad($1)”. “The DyAd is a Monad Originally (Tzdyad$1Cu)”. The “Monad Produces the DyAd ( 1Sg 2)”.
. Lao Tzu leaves out a lot of detail for his students to fill in. That’s HOW we learn. One Way to fill in the details is by using analogy. Analogy is a thinking tool which is based on the Law of Correspondence. Let us use the construction business as an example:
. The customer (A) might see his dream-house like a 3-dimensional hologram. That is the Aristotelian “final cause”. In the first step of the process the demand is described. It is a description of the supply a supplier is supposed to produce for a given amount of money. If a person is willing and able to pay for his demand, and a supplier is willing and able to do the job for the money offered then the second step of the process can take place.
. An architect (B) breaks down the customer’s 3-dimensional dream-house to a 2-dimensional blueprint of the house. The architect gives the customer’s dream-house a more concrete form. This is what Aristotle has called the “formal cause”. If the customer likes what s/he sees then the third step can take place.
. A contractor (C) breaks down the architect’s 2-dimensional blueprint to a 1-dimensional string of instructions. Each instruction is like a point in a line, which the contractor gives to his subcontractors (D). They concentrate on each point one at a time. After the subcontractor is done with a job he asks the contractor to inspect it and, if it passes the test then the subcontractor gets another job. This can be called the Zero-dimension.
. This is were specialization comes in. The contractor gives his instructions to specialists. This is why Aristotle has called the third step the “efficient cause”.
. The subcontractors (D), by carrying out the contractor’s instructions, supply the customer’s demand.
. In general: The architect breaks down the demand so that the contractor can handle it, and the contractor breaks down the blueprint so that the subcontractors can handle it. Now the subcontractors put the whole think back together again in material 3-dimensional form so the customer will pay for it. This is what Aristotle has called the “material cause”.
‘ The 4-fold IBM computer programming system is a better example of this, but our political masters have made it “disappear”. If the designers of that system could use the Aristotelian tetrad, why can’t the social engineers, who are in control of our educational system, teach it? …
Neiye chapter 8 is only six lines long. There are only 20 unique characters in it. Except for She(8E) and “Gradually(8F)”, all other characters are also in the Ching. In Neiye 8, we have a description of the same 4-fold system, but here we are starting from the bottom. It is a description of the same system but we have the inductive process here. We are starting on the most concrete level, with our own body (D).
A: If your “Body is Not Aligned (@kPU%8” with your mind (C) then
B: “Té will Not Come (TĚPUäz)”. If the three minds are not in their own
C: “Center then they can Not be Tranquil ( =PU^a)”. Why? …
D: Because your “Minds are Not in Order (HsPU85)”.
E: “Align your Body (%8@k)”! With what? …
. . . With your mind (C). Why? To …
. . . “Assist your Té (8FTÊ)”. When the
. . “Heaven-Humanity-Earth (Tn%5TI) triad is “Properly-aligned Then (Üw18)”
F: “Gradually It (8FJa), And of It’s own, Comes (btTuäz).”
. She(8E) = Rad. 64. “To assist; act for; control”. I have used Roth’s equivalent here but “Control” could be as valid. The Tao can be expected to “Control” its Té. Tao also means “Truth”. That would be Ervin Laszlo’s “information”, which controls everything.
. “Gradually(8F)”. If its radical is 85 then I don’t like the equivalent I got for it. This is why I have used Roth’s equivalent here in this context.
If you are not familiar with the Tao Te Ching you will find the interpretations, I have added to the original text, unjustifyable and totallt arbitrary. I can think of two reasons why Lao Tzu and the poet(s), here, say so little and leave so much to interpretation. Can you think of one? ...
By not answering the the question for you, I might get you to figure it out yourself. ...
================================================================
August 14, 2010
. In the August 12 section, I said:
“Without contemplation, no new original ideas can enter the system.
. Most of what happens in our lives is what we do intentionally and what happens to us, unintentionally. In concentration, an acting subject acts on an object; in contemplation, an acting subject acts through an acting object.”
. WHAT I have said here, I have said before in this blog. But HOW I have said it was “original”. In fact, it was so challenging that I apologized for it afterwards. I normally go over these sections, looking for the mistakes I can’t see before I send it out.
. This passage caught my attention because not only was HOW I said it original but there was also something “new” in the Way I have described “contemplation”. …
Try to see it in light of Ching 42, which I have quoted in the same section: The”
Tao Produces the One (A1Sg 1), the
One Produces the Two ( 1Sg 2), the
Two Produces the Three ( 2Sg 3) and the
Three Produces All Things ( 3SgWnwU).”
Concentration is the subject – object “DyAd(dyad)”. It is the “Two( 2)”.
Contemplation is the dyad plus the “Monad($1)”. That gives us the “TriAd( 3ad)”. In other words, the “Two”, plus the “One”, “Produces the “Three”. And the three plus the “One( 1)” produces “All Things”. So in the last of the four lines, Lao Tzu tells us that the “TriAd” Produces concrete Things. That is the final step in the 4-fold computer processing system. That is the Aristotelian “material cause” (D). It is the manifestation of the customer’s “final cause” (A). In computer programming it is the “job-description” (A).
The programmer (B) breaks it down for the coder,
the coder (C) breaks the programmer’s algorism down for the computer, and
the computer (D), by executing the coder’s instructions, puts it all together again for the customer (A).
. I have learned all of this in the seven Week computer programming course I took in 1964. But I know that the perfect IBM 1401 machne language was intentionally complexified, and then the system was (intentionally) phased out. Because I knew that our political masters don’t want us to understand the tetrad, I did some more thinking about it, and that is why some of what I have described here, is also “new” to me.
There is nothing to be believed in a democracy (A), there is only some thinking to be done. This is the very opposite of what the social engineers must get us to do in a timocracy. Instead of thinking (B) we are supposed to believe (C) what we are told.
. Even though in a timocracy (B) the unelected advisors (B) have the decision-making power, the capitalists are in control of the money and they own the mass-media. The timocrats are in control of the educational system. There is some competition between them, but they must work together. Why? …
Neither of them can control the people alone. Both of them know more than they allow the people to know But the people, sharing the truth with each other via the Internet, are finding out the truth, and there is nothing our political masters can do about it, other than shutting down the internet. The internet gives us an equal playing field, and there the truth will always win.
By means of social engineering our political masters can dumb down great numbers of people and make them believe their lies.
. They can fool some of the people all the time and all of the people some times but they can’t fool all of the people all the time. How can they prevent all of the people from doing their own thinking once in a while? …
. The evidence, that they can’t, could be seen here in Toronto by reading the signs the protest marchers, then thousand of them, were holding up for the press. The fact that the press was given an excuse to ignore the signs only means that our political masters don’t want us to see them, it doesn’t change what was on those signs.
. There is no way that our political masters don’t know that the truth is getting out and that their timocracy can’t be maintained much longer. What do they intend to do in order to stay in power? …
And now I shall leave you with a very important question:
What is the only thing they can do? …
======================================================
August 13, 2010
. On page 99 of his LOVE The Real Da Vinci CODE, Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz said that “astonishing scientific revelations and major breakthroughs disappeared from the public’s view”. At the end of the last section, below this one, I gave two examples of these “disappearances”. And then I ask: “But what does that tell us? What can we learn from that? …” …
I left you with that question because, by answering it yourself, you will benefit all of us. Why? …
Because the thoughts you think go into the “Akashic Field”. If they are true then we will all benefit from your thoughts; if they are what the social engineers want you to believe then …
=============================================
August 12, 2010
. In front of the German text of Rudolf Steiner’s PHILOSOPHY of FREEDOM is a quote from his autobiography: “It [the ideas expressed in that book] linked themselves [for] me …. together.( Es gliederten sich mir …. zusammen.)”.
. Steiner said, in his addition to chapter three, that “ the real thinking must always be willed (das wirkliche Denken muss immer gewollt sein).”
. Thoughts, which link themselves together, are not willed by a thinking subject, they happen to it. They are not parts of a line of thought a thinking subject intends to follow.
. In concentration, the thinking subject follows the line of thought it intends to follow; in contemplation, ideas come to mind the thinker did not intend to think about. The thinker is now an object through which a subject, the thinker is not aware of, is thinking. Involuntary thoughts can also take place as a result of previous programming. The programming can be done intentionally or unintentionally, by oneself or by others. Please don’t allow these added details to confuse you. As Mr.B told us: Nothing is gained by making things simpler than they really are.
. When there is the concentration – contemplation (E3-E1) “DyAd(dyad)” there is always the question: Who does it? …
Self or Not-self? And that is as complicated as it will get. Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)”, what Lao Tzu has called “Big(TA)” in chapter 25, the IBM programming process, etc. are all divided into four parts, no more, no less. These examples are all analogous to each other because they are all “tetrads”. A tetrad is the whole which emerges through three parts. A triad is a whole which emerges through two parts. A dyad is a whole in which one pole opposes or complements the other. A monad is a whole.
. Systematics is about twelve N-Term systems. In the monad N = 1, in the dyad N = 2, in the triad N = 3, etc up to twelve. This is as far as systematics goes. Actually, Lao Tzu doesn’t go beyond the tetrad. He doesn’t want us to bite off more than we can chew.
. The original IBM computer programming system is an excellent example of the tetrad because by means of it we not only get the theoretical (B) knowledge of it but a direct experience (D) of it. Guess why our political masters have made it “disappear”…
. The computer can be programmed to do deduction, induction and Aristotelian syllogisms, but it can only do it with its own knowledge base. Without contemplation, no new original ideas can enter the system.
. Most of what happens in our lives is what we do intentionally and what happens to us, unintentionally. In concentration, an acting subject acts on an object; in contemplation, an acting subject acts through an acting object.
. I know that this has to be explained better. This is why I want to reach a communicator who will do it for us. But let me try again:
. You can’t have contemplation without concentration because …
you can’t have one pole of a polarity without the other. Before you can have a triad, you must have the dyad. In fact, before you can have a dyad, you must have a monad. Lao Tzu puts it as follows: The “
Tao Produces the One (A1Sg 1), the
One Produces the Two ( 1Sg 2), the
Two Produces the Three ( 2Sg 3) and the
Three Produces All Things ( 3SgWnwU).”
In Systematics, there is a natural progression of numbers. You need a monad to get the dyad, a dyad to get the triad, a triad to get the tetrad, etc.
. You need the thesis (+) to get the antithesis (-) and the +- dyad to get the synthesis (=). The “Monad($1)” is reconciling the poles of the “DyAd(dyad)” and in doing so it produces the “TriAd( 3ad)” That is why in systematics, the monad is the reconciling impulse. The other two impulses are the poles of the dyad. The negative pole is called the receptive impulse. But for some reasons it is also called the denying impulse. If one pole of the dyad is not receptive but denying then we can’t go beyond the dyad. We have opposition but no complementation. And then we can’t get the triad. Unless this problem is corrected explained or acknowledged, we have to stay away from the “official version” of this terminology.
. On page 71 of THE POCKET KEN WILBER we get: “SINCE THE opposites cannot exist without each other, if you aren’t aware of both of them, you will send the rejected [or denied] one underground.” In other words, you don’t have a dyad.
. In the Buddha’s 8-fold path E9 is concentration, E10 is meditation and E11 is contemplation. That’s as far as the Buddha takes it. Still, we can see that E9 and E11 is the dyad and E10 is the monad, between its poles, which reconciles them.
. The Dodecad is the whole, which emerges through the other eleven N-Term systems. J. G. Bennett has “Identified(Mg)” and “Named(Mg)” the twelve terms of the Dodecad and these terms can be used to identify the terms of the Buddha’s Octad; Right vision (E4), right thought (E5), right speech (E6), right action (E7) right livelihood (E8), right concentration (E9), right meditation (E10) and right contemplation (E11). The Buddha goes beyond the Aristotelian tetrad: Final cause (E4), formal cause (E5), efficient cause (E6) and material cause (E7). The Aristotelian tetrad is based on Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)”: A = E4, B = E5, C = E6 and D = E7.
. Identifying the twelve terms of the Dodecad in terms of twelve levels of energy is probably J. G. Bennett’s greatest contribution by means of which to make sense of the rest of the eleven N-Term systems.
. The poetry (A) we have in the Gita, the Ching and the Neiye gets a round the preconceived ideas writers (C) bring with them. The mistakes writers make are “in the interest of themselves, the rulers (338e)” in a timocracy because …
they enable them to complexify things. This is why we need the DIVISION OF LABOUR. Plato has given us a very good introduction to it. Why don’t the social engineers, who are in control of our educational system, teach that? …
Put yourself into their shoes: Would you teach the truth to the people, which, when known by them, will set them free? The Way to use the knowledge of our political masters, is to pay attention to what they don’t want us to know and then study that.
. In the PROTOCOLS OF ZION we are told that they are going to teach THE DIVISION OF LABOUR after they have made their move. Why not before? …
So that’s what we have to study now.
. Writers (C) make mistakes because of the preconceived ideas they bring with them. What is the solution of this problem? …
The proper social function of philosophers (B) is to differentiate between preconceived ideas and the truth.
. The basic idea about the DIVISION OF LABOUR is already in the Republic but the errors in it have not been corrected but utilized to complexify the basically simple idea.
. Semiotics is the B-C-D triad of Systematics. Too simple, make it “disappear”. The original IBM computer programming system was taught in seven Weeks. Too simple, make it “disappear”. But what does that tell us? What can we learn from that? …
=============================================
August 11, 2010
. When timocracy (B) is going out, either Dictatorship (C), Capitalism or Democracy (A) will come in. Only one of these three can have the decision-making power. In practice, however, they “are really crosses between our four types (The Republic at 544d).” So the description of them, Plato gives from 543a to 592b, is a theoretical (B) one. In fact, the description we get from the Hindus of the four castes, before the system was corrupted by the Brahmins (B), is a more accurate and thus practical (D) one.
. In the July 31 section I said: “There are only two ways to go” from level B of Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)”, up towards democracy (A) or down towards dictatorship (C). In theory (B), saying that was a mistake. But what about practice (D)? …
In theory there are three Ways to go: From B to C, B to D or from B to A. …
What choices are there in practice? …
Please read Linda McQuaig’s books …
The three dots at the end of a line mean: Please think before reading on. …
If you read her books, you will know that we are closer to capitalism than is generally known. So, to get there, we don’t have to anywhere.
. While the rulers in our “Intelligent Man’S Government (wsmn Z85)” have the decision-making power, they can be bribed.
. When the timocrats (B) or the capitalists are making the decisions it will never be as obvious as when a dictator, or a group of authoritarian masters, make the decisions. Who makes the decisions in a Democracy will be common knowledge because this will be taught in school.
. Question: Which type of government is the 1.2 billion dollar display of power, we have seen here in Toronto, characteristic of? …
And who made that decision? …
What kind of government will take over when the computer virus kicks in? …
. In chapter 69 of Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching, he tells us that the “Biggest(TA)” mistake we can make is “Underestimating($j)” the economic (D), political (C) and intellectual (B) powers of our “Enemy(âb)”.
. That the government in power is really a cross “between our four types” and that Plato has made mistakes, “is in the interest of them selves, the rulers (338e)”. ...
Why does that help them with their “Political Science? …
Because it helps them to confuse the issue, and to keep us in the dark. To make us believe that we have a Democracy, they even let us have our two cents worth of input. Why, in spite of this, is our present government on its way out? …
Because what people think (B) and believe (C) is no longer exclusively determined by the social engineers but by people like you and I. Why? …
Because of the internet.
. There you have a bit of political science which can’t be taught in “Political Science” Why? …
Because teaching the truth which, when known by a critical mass, will set us free.
===================================================
August 9, 2010
. In the first line of the August 3 section I said: “In the August 2 section, I have made a fascinating mistake: ….”. In yesterday’s section I have made the same type of mistake. I said: “As truth is the lifeblood of democracy (A) so the ‘official version’ of their truth is the lifeblood of timocracy (C).” …
If you have noticed the mistake and figured out why my shadow caused me to make it then you will have benefited from it; if not then not.
. At the end of that same August 8 section I said something worth repeating:
“We, the people, are not even supposed to know that a war is going on. Why? …
Because our political masters don’t want us to fight back. The timocracy (B), we have now, can’t be maintained much longer. The cracks are becoming too obvious.. But the transition from it to democracy (A) can be a bloodless one.”
==============================================
August 8, 2010
. In the last three lines of my previous section, below this one, I said: “If our political masters want us to understand semiotics then they wouldn’t have made it ‘ disappear’. It would be naïve to expect them to teach the real semiotics [the one Derrida has made to disappear] in their educational system. Since semiotics will be studied in a democratic educational system, we might as well start with it now.”
. And in doing so, we are bringing democracy about. So where do we start? What is the kind of research that would be done in a democracy? …
As truth is the lifeblood of democracy (A) so the “official version” of their truth is the lifeblood of timocracy (C). So the first thing we would find out is what the social engineers don’t want us to study and then study it. I have reasons to believe that they don’t want us to understand systematics. So let me say a bit more about it:
. From J.G. Bennett and Gurdjieff we got four terms of the triad for its three “impulses”, or parts of the triad. Because that didn’t add up, I asked our instructor at Sherborn House about it. He didn’t answer the question. We have a valid question here and it is reasonable to ask why it wasn’t answered. …
If the instructor is a member of the club then he didn’t want us to understand it and then that is precisely what we have to understand.
. Plato already talked about the father-mother-child (+-=) triad in his Timaeus. We have four terms to identify the three impulses with. “Identifying the monad” is a major operation in systematics. The four terms are the affirming, the denying, the receptive and the reconciling impulses. The child is the outcome of this three-fold process, it is the reconciling impulse. So which one of the remaining three is the father and which one is the mother? …
Gurdjieff’s triad is the affirming-denying-reconciling (+-=). Is the father the affirming and the mother the denying impulse? …
. The customer can be “Identified(Mg)” as an affirming impulse. S/he has the money and is willing to pay for having her demand supplied. The demand is described in a “job-description” but there is more to it. The amount of money to be paid in advance and when payment has to be made upon delivery.
. Time is an important aspect of business. A supply which is not delivered on time can cause serious losses in business. So often a late delivery penalty, to compensate the customer for his losses, is also included in a demand. Now the thing looks more like a contract than a “Job-description” which is given by the customer (A) to a programmer (B). A “job-description” is what A gives and B receives, but a demand must be identified as an affirming impulse.
. Under what condition can the supplier be identified as a denying impulse? …
When the supplier tells the customer: we don’t …
Want your business. Are there any real examples of that condition in business? …
Yes, I can give you one from personal experience. I was a fity/fifty partner in a computer business. My partner accepted a job we couldn’t possibly get done by deadline. We put all the other jobs on hold, we did what we can but what can’t be done can’t be done. The deadline came and we were one day behind. My hope was that the customer would still accept the job one day late for free but let us get off the hook with the late delivery penalty. It so happened that one partner who was to attend the meeting was delayed because his plane was delayed. So the meeting was held on the next day, which was all we needed to finish the job. But this is no way to run a business. My partner didn’t just gamble with his own share, my half was in there too. He should have consulted me and we would have told the customer that we can’t do the job by deadline.
. We would have been a denying impulse which is opposed to the affirming impulse but then we would not have a dynamic triad but a static dyad. As Mr.B told us: There are associates of his who know more about systematics that he does. I am convinced that if I can figure this out on my own right here, then the instructor, I asked about this problem, had to know the answer. He had to know more systematics than I have used just now. And the reason he didn’t answer the question was …
. If you figure out the answer yourself then I can’t be called a “Ridiculous(*41)” conspiracy theorist.
. Whatever our political masters don’t want us to know that is what will be studied in a democracy. If the four terms for the three terms of the triad don’t make sense to us then we don’t get into it. We would be looking for three terms that are general “Enough’ to satisfy all conditions. A denying impulse prevents the triad from emerging through its two poles. After the whole has emerged it gives meaning to its parts. That doesn’t happen with the “DyAd(dyad)”. One pole of a polarity can’t emerge through the other pole. That’s why the dyad is a static system. One pole of a dyad is opposing the other pole. But the poles can also complement each other and then something can happen.
. On page 38 of his OCCULT SIGNS and SYMBOLS Rudolf Steiner said:
“ . Whoever stops here, however, is taking only the outer aspect into account. To recon with the whole we must include a third aspect that stands behind these two.”
. Then on page 40 he says: “We could also say that light and shadow appear in the manifest world, and behind these lies a third hidden element.”
. In general we can say that behind every “DyAd” there is a “Monad” waiting to become the reconciling impulse in a “TriAd”.
. Hegelian dialectics is the +-= triad. There we have a thesis (+), an antithesis (-) and the synthesis (=). In this triad, the monad (=) reconciles the opposites. Hegelian dialectics is a thinking tool. The reconciliation or synthesis happens when somebody knows HOW to do dialectics does it.
. Mr.B didn’t say that Hegel’s +-= triad doesn’t work he only said that his triad isn’t the only one. There are six possible triads: =-+, =+-, -=+, +=-, -+= and +-=.
. As I said before, this is the kind of thinking that will be done in a democracy and by doing it now, we are helping to establish it.
. Please Google: Systematics J.G. Bennett semiotics.
I don’t know how long it takes to teach the “official version” of semiotics but if you know systematics, it takes a few minutes to associate the thought, word and deed (B-C-D) triad with it.
. It took seven Weeks to teach computer programming. Today it could be done in less than that. But we need an updated version of the original IBM 1401 computer language on a platform on top of computer-chip hardware. We couldn’t do the fancy computer-games right away, but the computing that was done on the old IBM 1401 computer is still done today.
. The Y2K attempt failed because there were enough real programmers left to handle the problem. Today our political masters are in complete control of computer software. “Computer Scientists” are totally unprepared for any Y2K type disaster. This is the kind of disaster needed by our political masters to justify their GESTAPO type of force, of which we have seen a rehearsal here in Toronto.
. When the real show starts, it will be the end of timocracy (B) and then it will be bloody. I am no prophet, but I know that the people who are hanging on to their guns, don’t do it for nothing.
. The illuminati like to think of themselves as omniscient. They are not. They are humans and humans make mistake. I think that their $1.2 billion show of force was a mistake. Of course, as with my other theories, only time will tell if they are true. Theories are there to be tested. But I hope this last prediction can be averted before the facts are staring us in the face. The battle between timocracy (B) and democracy (A) is an ideological war. We, the people, are not even supposed to know that a war is going on. Why? …
Because our political masters don’t want us to fight back. The timocracy (B), we have now, can’t be maintained much longer. The cracks are becoming too obvious. But the transition from it to democracy (A) can be a bloodless one.
=============================================
August 7, 2010
. At the end of the July 29 section I said: “Line h [of Neiye chapter 8] starts with ‘Vital-energy’(#E). The equivalent is from Harold D. Roth. In the Ching Ch’i(#E) is in chapters 10, 42 and[ ]55.”
The reason I am going so far back is because, even though I have devoted over half a page to the analysis of the sentence, with the Ch’i in it, in Ching 55, the work was not good “Enough(Zu)”. There is much more we can learn from it. Here I intent to fill in the missing details. J.Wu has translated the sentence as follows:
“To control the breath by the will is to overstrain it. (Hs%e#E7357)”
Hsin(Hs) can mean “Heart” (B), intellect (B) or “Mind” (C). Here we have “the will”
Shih(%e) means cause, or to cause. Here we have “To control”.
Ch’i(#E) is “the breath” here.
Yüeh(73) is “used as an expletive”. And it is what makes this sentence so interesting. In the syntactic dimension of semiotics, you can translate this character any way you want and you are always right. Many characters in the Ching are like expletives, they mean what the context demands. That’s HOW Lao Tzu forces his students to think.
Ch’iang(57) means “To force, compel”. Here we have “Over(73)-Strain(57)”.
. Now let us see how Wing has translated the same five characters:
“To be conscious of Influence is called strengths.”
. The “Heart(Hs)” is the Atman in Sanskrit. It is on level A of Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)” and it uses Conscious Energy (E4). So to translate Hsin Shih Ch’i as “To be conscious of Influence” is very insightful. “Strength” is a valid equivalent of Chiang(57) but, even though Yüeh(73) can mean anything you want, if Lao Tzu wanted to say “Is-called(is)” then he would have said so.
. Now let us see what the Paul Carus – D. T Suzuki team have for us?
“…. and heart-directed vitality is called strength, but ….”. Here the sentence is a phrase but a good one: “Heart-Directed Vitality (Hs%e#E) Is-called Strength (7357)”.
. Here is Red Pine:
“who breathes with his will is strong”. And here comes Ellen M Chen:
“To use the mind (hsin) to direct the life breath (ch’i) is called the strong (ch’iang)”.
. The same five characters we have here are also in the Ma-Wang-Tui texts. So here is Robert G. Henricks’ translation of them:
“For the mind to control the breath---that’s called ‘forcing things.’”
. If we translate Hsin(Hs) as “Mind then What-it-does with the Vital-energy (Hs%e#E) Is “Forcing(7357)” things. Our mind (C) should leave that job to the intellect (B) and if it can’t handle the job, it will pass it on to the “Heart”.(A). If we translate the characters in the sequence they come, then Yüeh(73) means “Is” but much more is implied here.
Harold D. Roth gives a very convincing argument in his ORIGINAL TAO why the Neiye had to be older than the Ching. That means that Lao Tzu most likey knew it. We came to Ch’i(#E) at 8h (Neiye chapter 8 line h):
“Vital-energy, when Guided, Will Produce (E#8h$pSg)” life. Shêng(Sg) also means “Life”, and ,whether he knew the Neiye or not, Lao Tzu must have known that. And that’s what he might have implied by the Yüeh(73): When the
“Heart Guides the Vital-energy It is Strengthened”. Whether “It” refers to the “Heart” (A), the intellect (B), the “Mind” (C) the “Vital-energy” semiotics (B-C-D) or our human sphere of influence (A-B-C-D) is still subject to interpretation.
. Because Yüeh can mean anything in the syntactic dimension of semiotics (C) Lao Tzu is forcing his students to move up into the semantic dimension (B). The Tao Te Ching is primarily addressed to jnana yogis (B). Lao Tzu is literally “Forcing(57)” his students to think (B). You can’t become his student if you are unwilling or unable to think.
. If our political masters want us to understand semiotics then they wouldn’t have made it “disappear”. It would be naïve to expect them to teach the real semiotics in their educational system.
. Since semiotics will be studied in a democratic educational system, we might as well start with it now.
===================================================
August 6, 2010
. At the end of yesterday’s section I asked
“How do the social engineers get their ‘truth’ into the Akashic Field? …” …
By getting the people to believe it and they will do it for them. To get people to believe a lie, you have to get around their intellect (B). How? …
By “Repeating(@1)” your lies often “Enough(Zu)”. Take today’s Toronto Sun headline: . . . . . . . . . PLAY HITS HOME.
“Daughter of 9/11 victim has no sympathy for ‘Toronto 18’ terrorist” On page 5 we get something that amounts to a letter to the editor, the personal opinion of a brainwashed reader: “When blowing up people places and things becomes part of your list of acceptable activities, for whatever reasons, I don’t tend to feel sorry for you. Ever.”
. “Ever”? …
Watching the videos on 9/11 might change your mind. Here the same “official version” of what happened on 9/11 is “Repeated(@1)” again as if it was never questioned who the people are who blew up the towers are, and as if their motive for it is impossible to comprehend. The “official versions” of 9/11 had to be changed several times because of certain facts emerging. But that doesn’t prevent the social engineers from repeating their lies. The facts about 9/11 are coming out, making it necessary for the “official versions” to be “updated”. The facts are out there in plain sight in those videos and the contradictions can be seen in the mass-media. To deny these facts is inexcusable. It is as Plato said: “The penalty for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” How much longer can the social engineers make us blind to the facts? …
Social engineering is a science, it is powerful, but that it has its limits could be seen by reading the signs the protest marchers were holding up for the press here in Toronto. How much longer can the social engineers prevent us from facing the facts? …
. To get back to the above question: The social engineers are using an +=- triad. The three “impulses” are: Sender-connective-receiver. …
Our political masters are sending their message to us and we are supposed to put it into the Akashic Field. If we believe what they tell us then, whether we know it or not, we are working for them; If we question the validity of their “official version” of the truth, we are working for democracy. Truth is the lifeblood of democracy; the “official version” of the truth is the lifeblood of timocracy. Refuse to believe their “truth” and you deprive them of their power over you.
J. G. Bennett’s DRAMATIC UNIVERSE adds up to 1650 pages. And a disproportionate amount of space has been dedicated to the triad. It is simply too much for me to chew. Most of my knowledge (B) comes from Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching, and my understanding (B-D) of the +=- triad comes from nine years of working as a computer programmer. That experience (D) enables us to know exactly WHAT the social engineers are doing. Social engineering is a science and we are not supposed to understand it. If a critical mass of us understands it, it no longer works.
. Knowing WHAT they are doing is not “Enough” but, unless we know that, we can’t even start to figure out HOW they are doing it.
. On my old website Web.ncf.ca/dr 461 (I tried it, it is no longer there) I have done some back engineering on one of George Jonas’ columns. It was a job and a half, and now I can no longer understand it. And I am not going to work on it again unless a communicator is interested “Enough” in social engineering. Why waste my time? (besides, it is no longer there).
. While you are at my old website, have a look at the work I did on Cing 63 around 1980. That chapter is fundamental for Lao Tzu’s students. The first paragraph consists of eight imperative sentences. 64.1,4 and 5 can also be read as indicative sentences. Trying to carryout those instructions will keep you busy for a while. For instance at 63,1,1 we get: “Do things Without Doing (doWUdo)” them intentionally! What is that one about? …
You are doing contemplation all te time, you just don’t always know when you are doing it.
1,3: “Taste that which is Without Taste (#KWU#K)”! What does that mean? …
The only other chapter in which we have: That which is “Without Taste (WU#K)” is 35. There it is associated with the Tao(A1).
. Ching 2 consists of two indicative sentences, which form a “DyAd(dyad)”. Then comes the “ThereFore(SiYI)” followed by two sentences and then a “ThereFore” again followed by two sentences. This chapter is broken down syntactically as if the student is not ready jet to do it semantically. But, after working on this chapter, it turns out that the syntactic divisions are also semantic ones. Take 63.3,2:
“He who finds it easy to make promises will necessarily find it hard to keep them..” There are many different ways you can say: Don’t bite off more than you can chew. If you keep repeating the same words your ego becomes aware of it and keeps it on a more abstract, conscious, level. To get the message into a subconscious ego state, your shadow perhaps, you have to get around your intellect by clothing your message in words that hide it.
. The way to program or to “DeProgram (PUÜd)” yourself is by “Repeating(@1)” the message, but not the words.
. At 63.1,5 Lao Tzu says: Make “Many words Few (TO$q)”! …
The message behind many different words can be the same. When you have “Identified(Mg)” the “One( 1)” truth behind different words, you have made the message behind “Many words Few”.
. I have said before, that if you work on the Tao Te Ching, it will work on you. This is HOW Lao Tzu does it. Did I also tell you that the social engineers know HOW to do it?
==================================================
August 5, 2010
. In the August 3 section I said that Lao Tzu’s students study his Tao Te Ching the Way he said it should be studied. “And these are the kind of lessons that would be taught [in] a democratic educational system. And, if you do that kind of study now, then you are actually working to bring democracy about.” Why? …
If you do the work of figuring out the answer yourself then you are doing more for democracy than you would be doing by merely reading my answer. …
There is a difference between reading (C) and thinking (B) and between “Knowing(kn)” and “Understanding(kn)” How come Chih(kn) means two different things? …
. Let us stick to the first question: How come that by figuring out the truth you are helping to establish democracy? …
What you know and, more efficiently, what you understand and believe (C) goes into what Ervin Laszlo has called the Akashic Field or what Rupert Sheldrake has called the Morpho-genetic Field or what C G, Jung has called the collective unconscious.
. In the syntactic dimension of semiotics (C) there are different “Names(Mg)” for things and “Concepts(B1)”. In the semantic dimension (B) the content of these words is “Identified(Mg)”. How come Ming(Mg) means two different things? …
. Let us not lose concentration (E3) and stay on the line of thought we were on: …
Rupert Sheldrake has been subjected to much “Ridicule(*41)” for talking about his Morpho-genetic Field, which means that the social engineers don’t want us to know about it. Which means? …
That we should find out about it. When you seek, find, think, read, write or tell the truth, you are putting it into the Akashic Field. Whatever is in there determines what non-thinking people believe (C) automatically (E6). The collective unconscious is like our shadow, it works on our subconscious egostates. So, whether you know it or not, by believing the truth you are causing other people to believe it. And by believing the “official version” of the truth you are causing …
. When you found the truth in the Bible, the Gita, the Ching, the Republic or any other book in which it can be found and you “Repeat(@1)” it, by thinking and talking about it, you are working for democracy; and when you spread the lies the social engineers are putting into your head, you are working for them. Whatever you believe (C) and understand (B) you are putting into the Akashic Field. The power of democracy comes from the truth which is in the Akashic Field; the power of timocracy cames from the “official version” of their truth. Their truth is the invention of the social engineers. It is not “Constant Enough (CnZu)”, it “Always(Cn)” has to be “updated”.
. Now comes the big question: …
How do the social engineers get their “truth” into the Akashic Fiel? …
========================================================
August 4, 2010
. In the last section, below this one, I said: “Here we have the +=- or the -+=
‘triad( 3ad)’. In these two triads meditation is the connective, it is in the “Center( =)”.
. There is a mistake in there. Can you see it? …
The mistake is not my fault, my shadow made me do it. Whenever my shadow causes me to make a mistake, it wants me to do more work on the passage the mistake is in. As I elaborate on it, I don’t just tell you what I already know about it but, more often than not, I learn something new. So here we go:
. Every “TriAd( 3ad)” consists of a “Monad($1)” and a “DyAd(dyad)”. For details see J. G. Bennett’s DRAMATIC UNIVERSE or Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching. There are six possible combinations of these two N-Term systems. When the monad is in front, we have either =+- or =-+, when the monad is in the middle, we have either +=- or -=+ and when it is at the end, we have either +-= or -+=. Lao Tzu gives six example of the last type at Ching 2.2.. For instance, at 2.2,6 (Chapter 2, paragraph 2, sentence 6), Lao Tzu says: “Before and After Mutually produce Sequence (#c60mt#e)”. The type of triad in which the monad is in the middle can be known from language (C). Take, for instance the sentence: “Cows eat grass.” What are the three parts called? …
Subject, verb and predicate. Noam Chomsky calls the verb the connective. That is the reconciling impulse in Systematics. When it is in the middle I follow Chomsky and call it the connective. So an indicative sentence is either the +=- or the -=+ triad. The original IBM computer programming system was based on the Aristotelian tetrad. There are four triads in it which have the monad in the middle. Those of us who took the seven Week course did not only get the theory of these triads but a hands on experience of it. We actually had to produce a “job-description” That is the first step in the 4-fold process. It is the demand. The demand comes from E3 and, through E4, gets to E5. E1 to E12 are the “Names(Mg)” J.G. Bennett has given to the 12 terms of the Dodecad. The Dodecad includes all the other eleven N-Term systems which are studied in Systematics. That means that the four triads we have in the computer programming system can be represented in terms of the names we have for terms of the Dodecad. Here they are: E3-E4-E5, E4-E5-E6, E5-E6-E7 and E6-E7-E8. E3 and E8 are outside of our sphere of influence, while E4 is level A on Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)”, E5 = B, E6 = C and E7 = D.
. Without a demand (A) there can be no supply (B-C-D). No customer (A), no job for B, C, and D. Thought, word and deed form the B-C-D triad.
. Even today, when producing black boxes there have to be these four steps in order to produce them. The 4-fold process is no longer mentioned in “Computer Science”
. So far I have not learned anything new. So what else am I supposed to do? …
The mistake was saying -+= instead of -=+. …
If we “Identify(Mg)” the demand with the minus sign (-} then it is what has to be filled, or supplied. In terms of Systematics, it would be the receptive impulse. The outcome of the process (+) would be its opposite and the equal sign (=) would be the reconciling impulse.
. Systematics is the study of twelve N-Term systems. In the “Monad($1)” N = 1, in the “DyAd(dyad)” N = 2, in the “TriAd( 3ad) N = 3 etc. For more efficient communication the parts of the dyad are called poles, the parts of a triad are called impulses, the parts of a tetrad are called sources, etc.
. In the E1-E2-E3 triad E3 the receptive impulse, E1 is its opposite and E2 is the connective. We know from computer programming that in the E3-A-B triad, B is the receptive impulse It receives the “job-description” trough A from E3. So E3 must be the opposite of B. But in the E1-E2-E3 triad E3 was the receptive impulse. Things are getting complicated, but we can assume that instructors who teach that subject know that much.
. The terms we get for the “impulses” of the triad are: Affirming impulse, denying impulse, reconciling impulse and receptive impulse. Do you find something wrong with that? …
So did I. This is why I asked our instructor at Sherborn House about it. He didn’t answer the question. Could it be that he was not aware of the fact that there is a problem? …
Could it be that he was an infiltrator who didn’t want us to understand Systematics? …
Well, that “Ridiculous(*41)” conspiracy theory was new to me.
====================================================
August 3, 2010
In the previous, August 2, section, I have made a fascinating mistake: I said “that much of what will be taught about philosophy (A), politics (C) and economics (D) in a democracy, can already be found in Plato’s Republic.” …
I didn’t put that error in there to give you the opportunity to benefit from it. I didn’t make that error intentionally. Ken Wilber comes to mind automatically (E6): “SINCE THE opposites cannot exist without each other, if you aren’t aware of both of them, you will send the rejected one underground (Pg. 71).” The “rejected” part of us is our “shadow” and our ego (B-C-D) is left in charge to steer the ship. Our shadow is like a backseat driver who is making noises when we are getting off curse. If we don’t pay “Enough(Zu)” attention to it then it will say less and less; and if we do pay “Enough” attention then …
. So what caused me to make that mistake? I knew perfectly well that philosophy (B) is not on level A. So, the ”I” which knows that, didn’t say: “philosophy (A)”. And that “I” would also have found the error when proofreading that section. If I didn’t find other, often less obvious, mistakes then there would be no point in doing any proofreading at all. Ken Wilber says on the same page of THE POCKET KEN WILBER that “whatever you now consciously intend, wish, or desire”, is the very “opposite” of what your shadow intends, wishes or desires. There is, thus, some kind of a battle going on between your conscious “I” (B-C-D) and “your unconscious opposite”.
. Listen to what I said in the July 29 section: “Ch’ung(#4) is in [Ching] 04, 42 and 45. Its primary dictionary equivalent is: ‘To dash against …. ‘ Here [at Ching 42] it must be referring to the opposites of Yin and Yang, who ‘dash against’ each other.” That would mean here that our conscious and unconscious selves are “dashing against” each other. But Lao Tzu makes us think: At Ching 4 and 45 the character clearly means “Empty(#4)” because in both chapters its opposite is “Full(^4)”. Let us, then, look at Wing’s translation of Ching 42.2,2: “Their blended influence brings Harmony (#4#EYIdoHo)”. Yi(YI) Wei(do) Ho(Ho) can also be translated as: “…. In-order To create Harmony (YIdoHo)”. In the July 29 section I have given examples of work that can be done on the Ching. It is the kind of work Lao Tzu is teaching his students to do. And these are the kind of lessons that would be taught a democratic educational system. And, If you do that kind of study now, then you are actually working to bring democracy about.
. Here is some more of of what would be taught in a democracy: There are three dharmas: contemplation (E1), meditation (E2) and concentration (E3). The three form one “TriAd( 3ad)” There is nothing to be believed (C) about triads, there is just something to be understood (B). …
Concentration is when you, as a subject, act on an object. Meditation is when you, the observing subject, observe yourself. In every triad there are always one “Monad($1)” and a “DyAd(dyad)”, which means that contemplation is …
the opposite of concentration. In contemplation we are not acting on an external object, but an external subject is acting on us. Question: When social engineers or advertisers act on us, which one of the three dharmas are we supposed to do? …
. When our shadow, God the devil or social engineers act on us, they are the cause and we are supposed to be the intended effect. But we don’t have to be. Why? …
Because we have the freedom of choice. We can choose which dharma we want to do. And, because we have the freedom of choice, we are responsible for our choices. The good or bad effects you produce as a result of being the effect of an external agent is your good or bad karma. The agent can’t force to do what he wants you to do, he can only trick you into it. These are the basics of a democratic education, they would be taught in grade school. They would be common knowledge in a democratic society. Not even a dictator can forbid us to think. So. If we don’t do it, we have no one else but ourselves to blame for it.
. Notice that whatever you do, it is always one of these three dharmas. So the error I have made must be one of them. Which one? …
Contemplation (E1), meditation (E2) or concentration (E3)? …
Here we have the +=- or the -+= “TriAd( 3ad)”. In these two triads meditation is the connective, it is in the “Center( =)” and Chung( =) is the right component of Ch’ung(#4). Can you see what lessons you learn when you study the Tao Te Ching the Way Lao Tzu says it should be studied? …
. What will be taught in philosophy (B) in a democracy is not coming FROM the philosophers (B). as it is in a timocracy (B). …
It is coming from E3, THROUGH E4 (A) to E5 (B). What is coming from A goes THROUGH B to C, as what is coming from B goes THROUGH C to D. So it is contemplation (E1) all the Way down. That’s what my shadow was saying.
=======================================================
August 2, 2010
. On the third and last page of the previous section, below this one, I have described chapter 18 of Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching: When the “Big Tao” is “Taken-apart”, first we get democracy (A), then comes “Hypocracy” (B), then we get Oligarchy (D) “and then we ‘Have’ (C) Capitalism.”
. There is a mistake here. If you have noticed and corrected it then you will have benefited from that mistake; if not then not. This one is a semantic (B) error. There is nothing wrong with the syntax of this sentence. There are other syntactic errors in my blogs but I don’t have to mention them because they are obvious. But there are omissions in the last section, which come to light by knowing what to look for. …
These omissions are lines of thought which I have not followed because I have followed another line and you can only follow one line at a time.
. Writing a computer program or a book is a linear process. Lao Tzu uses Chinese in such a way that two equally valid interpretations of the same sentence are possible, but this is more difficult in phonetic languages, like English or Sanskrit, and in computer languages ambiguity is impossible. Every instruction (C) calls for a specific operation (D) the computer has to carryout.
. This is analogous to what happens in politics: Only the instruction of the rulers of the party which is in power will take effect.
. A . . . A group of dictators (C) can decide to move from B to C.
D + B . the capitalists (D) can decide to move from B to D, or
. C . . . the people (A) can decide to move from B to A, but you can’t move up, down or from right to left at the same time. Only the most powerful political (C), intellectual (B) or spiritual (A) interest group can decide were to go from level B of Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)”. Which group will make that decision will probably be seen very soon. Whether people read this blog and think about it doesn’t change the fact that a decision has to be made soon but it can change who makes that decision.
. There is only so much social engineers can do and they know it better than we do. So which one of the other three is going to take over? ...
Only the decisions of the rulers of the government in power can take effect. So which ones make the decisions will be observable. Let us look at only two decisions that were made about the G20 recently and ask who made them. …
Who decided to have the G20 here in Toronto and to spent 1.2 billion dollars on “security”? …
Our elected politicians (C)? …
No. They don’t make the decisions in a timocracy (B). …
In our government the unelected advisors (B) of our politicians make the decisions. If they lose their intellectual (B) power over the minds (C) of the people, what are they going to do to stay in power? …
Remember, they are not stupid. The other two types of government, competing for power, are capitalism and democracy.
. Potentially the people are the most powerful group. And we can “Actualize our Potential (A1pt)” by finding out the truth which, when known collectively, will set us free. Knowledge is power, on level A and on level B. On level A it is the knowledge of HOW to find out the truth, and on level B it is the knowledge of HOW to prevent us from finding out the truth which keeps them in power. Simple isn’t it? If you got it, please tell your friends about it. …
. In the last section “I thought about what justification I have to write about two subjects for which I have not earned a degree by attending years in University.” …
When you ask the right question often “Enough(Zu)”, the answer will come sooner or later. What could be my justification? …
. I am not qualified to talk about “Social Science”. Political Science” or “Computer Science” because I have not invested the years in University to earn a degree in those “Sciences”. But what are these sciences? …
They are inventions of the social engineers. They are “what is in the interest of themselves, the rulers (338e)” in a timocracy (B). If it were in their interest to teach what Plato has said then these things would be common knowledge. What would be taught under the same subject headings in a dictatorship (C), an oligarchy (D) or in a democracy (A) would be quite different.
. While we, the people, don’t have our act together as well as our political masters have their’s together, it is safe to say that much of what will be taught about philosophy (A), politics (C) and economics (D) in a democracy, can already be found in Plato’s Republic.
. After two GESTAPO like building inspectors motivated me to find out what government we live under I have studied the Republic for seven years. There is a flaw in it. The parts didn’t fall into place. The four IMPERFECT SOCIETIES, were described in such a Way that the whole couldn’t emerge through them. After seven years of struggling with that book, I got so angry that I told God that I am going to give up unless He tells me what is wrong with the Republic. Within half a year I ended up at the feet of Jagad Guru Sri Kripalu Mahaprabhu in India. He doesn’t speak English but he asked me: “Do you give me permission to help you?” And, after I nodded, he assigned an English speaking devotee of his to my case. Within Weeks, I was made to understand that Plato’s ideal society is really the same as the original Indian caste system (A) before it was corrupted by the Brahmins (B). Plato’s vision (A) was true but the knowledge (B) and, more importantly, the believes (C) “WordErs (C2er) already have before they have their vision cause them Not to Understand (PUkn)” them. Plato, Rudolf Steiner, J.G. Bennett and others have done the best they could with their vision.
. From this we can see that we need the DIVISION OF LABOUR. The “KnowErs (kner” need the “WordErs (C2er)” because they can’t get their visions; and the “WordErs” need the “KnowErs” because they can’t interpret their own vision. “WordErs Can’t Understand (C2erPUkn)” their own visions because their own preconceived ideas get in the way.
. There is another detail I didn’t follow up in the last section. The question was: What is the difference between “Social Science” and “Political Science”? …
How did the question arise? …
The same “systems thinking” is behind both “Sciences”. So once the question arises we already have the tool to solve it with. Applying systematics to this problem will solve it almost automatically (E6): Politics (C) is a part of sociology (A-B-C-D). And now that I have filled in the missing details, I feel better.
=============================================
July 31 2010
“Social Science” is, or should be, the study of what makes society tick. That study would reveal which one of Plato’s four “IMPERFECT SOCIETIES (See his Republic)” comes closest to perfection. The governments he has described are: Oligarchy, or capitalism (D), Tyranny, or dictatorship (C), Timocracy (B), the one we have, and Democracy (A), the government OF the people (demos, in Greek) in which the decisions are made BY the people FOR the people.
“Political Science” is, or should be the study of these four political systems and the systems thinking behind it. For instance, why are these four the only possible ones?, or why is each one of these four opposed to the other three? Plato has devoted two chapters of his Republic to each of these four systems. Later philosophers have improved on it, but the original ideas are there. If they were not, then there would have been nothing to improve on. So the study of the Republic should be fundamental to political science. Plato is, or has been, called the father of Western Philosophy.
Neither social science, political science nor philosophy can be taught in a timocracy. Why can’t the social engineers, who are in control of our educational system, teach these three subjects properly?
. . Because each of the four social systems is the opposite of each of the other three. That means that: If truth is the lifeblood of democracy then falsehood must necessarily be the lifeblood of timocracy. In practice that means: If a critical mass of the people finds out the truth then the truth will set them free and that means the end of timocracy
That the truth is getting out is undeniable. And there is no way that our political masters don’t know it. In the long run, the truth will always win. Lao Tzu calls it the “Constant Enough (CnZu)”. Lies can never be “Enough”, the “official versions” of the truth “Always(Cn)” have to be updated. What this means is that our present form of government can’t last much longer. There are only two ways to go. And it is best for all of us if you figure out, what these two possibilities are, yourself.
August 1, 2010 ======
. The above was intended to go out on my blog yesterday but it ended up as a flyer. Professional “Social Scientists” and “Political Scientist” are automatically (E6) going to reject the above argument as a “Ridiculous(*41)” conspiracy theory. Why? …
They have been trained that way.
. I am fully aware that trained professionals who have spent years in University to get their degrees are very hard to reach with theories that contradict the “official version” of the truth. So the flyer is primarily addressed to non-professional, people who know no more about the “official version” of Social and Political Science than I do but who have a personal interest in politics because they feel that something is wrong with it.
. As a result of putting out the flyer I thought about what justification I have to write about two subjects for which I have not earned a degree by attending years in University. My justification is the same I have for writing about “Computer Science”. I have not attended the years in university to get a degree on it, yet I am qualified to talk about it. All real programmers who have taken the 7 Week IBM computer programming course I have taken are qualified to talk about it. And there are some very good commentaries by them on the internet. In fact, many real programmers got killed because they knew too much.
. I have told my story before, so I will keep it short. In 1964 I took the 7 Week course. To learn how to help the customer how o do the “job-description” (A) took about a week. If all customers already knew it, that Week is unnecessary. To learn how to do the programming (B) took about three Weeks. Learning how to code (C) took about two Weeks and learning to operate the ¼ million dollar IBM 1401 computer took less than a Week. With today’s desk and laptop computers, that Week is no longer necessary.
. When the perfect IBM 1401 machine language was ”improved”, I quit. Keeping up with the “improvements” was an insult to my intelligence. Another reason was that I was accepted for a one year course under J. G. Bennett, in England.
. In the mean time my former partner, Jim, got a new partner, a “Computer Scientist”. About two Month before my return they got a “job-description” Jim’s new partner couldn’t handle. Jim knew that I could. So he talked me into doing it. I had developed an aversion to computer programming, so it took some doing but he got me to do it because I didn’t have to worry about the computer, they had one, I didn’t have to worry about the “job-description” because in the two Month in which they tried to solve the problem, Jim got it down pad. And I didn’t have to worry about the coding because Jim would be doing it for me in BASIC. So I came into his office at noon and by quitting time, around five the job was done. How come Jim’s partner didn’t learn in all of his years in University what I had learned in three Weeks? …
Really, try to figure that one out. Why don’t they teach programming (B) in a course on computer science? What do they teach? …
They teach students how to use black boxes. And when there is no black box for a job, they are as stuck as Jim’s new partner was stuck. I can’t be the only programmer who has had an experience like that. So what is going on? …
The answer to the question: What is the difference between “Social Science” and “Political Science” came to me this morning as a result of asking that question. Italso helped to ask: What is really behind these “official versions” of “Sciences” for which students get “official” degrees? …
The answer that came to me in a flash was that “politics” (C) is one of the four parts through which “sociology” (A-B-C-D) emerges.
I have already given a partial answer in my flyer: “Political Science …. should be the study of these four political systems and the systems thinking behind it.” But the full answer has already been given by Plato 2300 years ago at 338e of his Republic:
“ . Each type of government enacts laws that are in its own interest, …. And in enacting these laws they make it quite plain that what is ‘right’ for their subjects is what is in the interest of themselves, the rulers, ….”
Since it is not “In the interest of themselves, the rulers” in a timorcracy, to teach what Plato has said here, it is not being taught. The same goes for real computer programming (D), real religion (A), real philosophy (B) real politics (C) real semiotics (B-C-D and real sociology (A-B-C-D).
. So when we talk about these “Sciences” we are really talking about the science of social engineering.
. Back to my original “Insight(72)”: Why is politics a part of sociology? …
To answer this question let us start with what religion (A) can tell us about it:
. At Gita 4.13 Krishna says: “The four orders of men arose from me, in justice of natures and their works. “ They didn’t arise in justice to inheritance, as the Brahmins (B) have it.
It is more as Astrology has it. There are four types of human beings, and what we are determines our dharma. In the original Indian caste system, before the Brahmins have corrupted it, your work was determined by your dharma. Because that was known, the original caste system developed naturally. So the truth which when known will set us free must somehow include this knowledge of dharma. The DIVISION OF LABOR you find when Googling it and PROTOCOLS OF ZION, refers to the corrupted caste system.
. Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)” is divided in to four parts. Aristotle was Plato’s student. So that’s what the Aristotelian tetrad came from and from it comes the Cartesian plane. The parable of the sower and the seed (Matthew 13:3) and Ching 71 are about the same N-Term system. In all of these examples N = 4. What else can Lao Tzu tell us about the tetrad? …
When the “Big Tao Casts-aside (TAA1@ )” its parts, first we “Have(YU)” (A) democracy, then we “Have” (B) a “Hypocracy (TA*b (*b = Wei9)), then we “Have” (D) an Oligarchy and then we “Have” (C) Capitalism.
. The only other chapter Fei(@m) is in is Ching 36. There it comes with its “Opposite(Fy)”: “If you Want to Take It apart then Necessarily (41YÜ@m ZPI) you have to put it together first (($oYü Z)”.
. At Ching 17.1, the sequence is A-D-C-B. Here A is called the best and the government we have, in which the rulers are “Despised”, is the worst one.
. At Ching 25.3 the sequence is the same as at 18. At 25.4 the sequence is the same, but described in “Reverse($l)” order: C “Follows(äh)” D, D follows B follows A and A “Follows ItSelf (ähTuJa)”.
. So according to all of these sources human society is a tetrad. That means that in a democratic (A) educational system in which the people are educated BY the people, the study of the tetrad would be at least part of sociology.
. What “Social Science” and “Political Science” is in our present political system (B), you can find out by spending the years required to earn your degree in it. In those years you will also be conditioned to reject everything that is not the “official version” of “Science” as “Ridiculous(*41)” conspiracy theories.
. You can get a pretty good idea of what the education is in an Oligarchy (D) is by analyzing what you get from the mass-media. He who pays the piper calls the tune. So the owners (D) of the mass-media have their writers (C) tell us how wonderful Capitalism is. Linda McQuaig talks more objectively about it.
. I have saved dictatorship (C) for the last because I hope that the taste we got of it here in Toronto at our protest march will not be repeated. To find out what a dictatorship is like, we have enough refugees from Cuba here in Canada to consult about it. My own experience is the failed assassination attempt I had to suffer through in Cuba. Of course, it would be a “Ridiculous” conspiracy theory to assume that the Canadian counterparts of the Cuban GESTAPO (GEheime STAat’s POlizei (Secret state police)) had something to do with it.
===================================================
July 30, 2010
. “WordErs Don’t Know (C2erPUkn)” what their dharma, their proper social function is. That communicators (C) don’t know WHAT their contribution to establishing democracy (A) is, is, in my opinion, the biggest social problem we have. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. The proper functioning of a healthy society depends on the proper functioning of every one of the four classes within it. And the communicators are letting us down. There is a truth, which, when known, will set us free, and the “WorErs Don’t Know (C2erPUkn)” it.
. Our elected politicians (C) know what they have to do to maintain their timocracy (B) but that doesn’t do us any good, unless …
we learn from them. What politicians (C) are doing for their unelected advisors (B), communicators (C) should be doing for the people (A). Truth is the lifeblood of democracy, therefore, communicators must communicate the truth, which, when known by a critical mass, will set the people free.
. I said before, that there is nothing to be believed (C) in the Tao Te Chng, there is just something in it which can be understood (B). Lao Tzu said:
“My Words are Very Easy to UnderstandmyC2%tezkn)”. How? …
“Very Easy (%tez) if you Practice(pr)” my lessons. Please don’t blindly believe what any translator says. Use Jonathan Star’s scholarly work to verify or to disprove the validity of a translation. That is the kind of work which is already part of the “Practice(pr)” Lao Tzu is talking about. I have a few ideas by means of which this work can be done more efficiently, but until these theories (B) have been translated into practice (D), Stars work will do fine.
. I said before that the Tao Te Ching is composed in such a Way that if you work on it, whether efficiently or not, it will work on you. The same is true of the Neiye. A good example of this came up in the few days from July 27 to now.
. In the July 27 section I have translated nine lines of Neiye chapter 8. Now an improvement of the translation of lines b and c came to mind. Three days ago, what I did then was the best I could do. Now hear this:
8b: “Only Then will you be Able to do the Fixing (Ja4Rab8b).” …
Please compare this updated translation with the one I did in the July 27 section. …
Why can this be called an “improvement”? …
“Aligning(%8)” yourself with the level above your own is the pre-condition for the
“Ability to be Tranquil (ab^a)”, and “Tranquility” is the pre-condition for the “Ability to do the Fixing (ab8b)”. If your sphere of influence is on level B then level A is above you and level C is “Below( -)”. As you have to align yourself to level A to be “Able” to do your dharma, so C has to align itself with you to be “Enable(ab)” to do its dharma. In doing so it also enables you to carryout your social function.
. In our present political system the politicians (C) align themselves with their advisors (B) and if we, the people (D), do and believe what our politicians tell us then we enable them to fulfil their social function within their timocracy. Since in a timocracy (B) the advisors (B) are not working for the people but for themselves, the fact that their system works doesn’t do us any good.
. Here is the updated line c:
8c: “Fix the Mind which is In the Center (8bHsÜp =)”.
Hsin(Hs) can be the heart (A) the intellect (B) or the mind (C). In an imperative sentence, the verb is the sentence. Everything else are subordinate phrases which arise as a result of answering interrogative sentences: “Fix”! Fix What? …
The mind. Which one? …
The one which is in the center. C is the connective in the B-C-D “TriAd( 3ad)”, so it is “In the Center”. When this is understood, line l can also be understood:
8l: “All the Mind’s Forms (3aHs Z@k)” refers to the heart, the intellect and the mind (A, B and C). If one of them
8m: “Bypasses the Known (#jkn) boundaries then there will be a Loss of Production (37Sg)”.
. As in the Ching, so here we have to fill in the missing details. And we can only do that by following the line of thought the poets (A) are following. And they are following what comes to them from E3, which is the level above E4. The deductive process, we are following here, is a stepping down, while the inductive process is a stepping up of energy.
. To bring the truth, which is in these books, to light, we have to do the kind of work writers like Jonathan Star and others have given us an example of. I have a few ideas by means of which this kind of work can be done more efficiently (my more efficient boat, or ship, hull came to mind here) but until then I think that Star’s work is the best we have.
. The Ching and the Neiye are not the only books in which the truth can be found. There is also the Gita, the Bible and the Koran. The same truth is at the core of all of them, but it is covered up. It is the “One( 1)” truth, which, when known individually or collectively will set us free. What we have to do to find it, is to seek it. And for that we must “Desire(YÜ)” to find it. And this is why the social engineers will “Always Cause the People (Cn%eMn) …. to be Without the Desire (WUYÜ)” to find it. After we know WHAT they are doing, what is the next question? …
HOW can we “Stop($i)” them from doing it? …
By finding out Why and How they are dong it. A “trick (at 548a of the Republic)” only works as long as the tricked doesn’t know it.
. Finding out HOW we are tricked is part of our search for truth. And, after it is found, we must “Repeat(@1)”, share and use it. “Always(Cn)”, “Daily%q)”, “Again(@1)” and again “Repeat(@1)” the truth you have found! Think about:
“whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. (Phil 4:8).”
. By doing these things you are stepping down a higher more abstract energy to a more concrete one, which causes you to do automatically, with Automatic Energy (E6), what until then you could only do if you were awake “Enough(Zu)”.
. “Seek the Truth (doA1)!”, can be taken as a “job-description” but I can’t pay you for that work. I can assure you, however, that this work is going to pay off. The more of us will do that work, the sooner it will pay off. But, if we don’t do it, then the fateful decision about our future will not be made by us but by our political masters. If we allow them to make the decision, I can say: I told you so. But then, knowing the truth, will make no difference anymore.
. That the people are waking up is undenyable. There is no way that our political masters don’t know that. So what do they have to do to stay in power? ...
I shall leave you with that question. ...
======================================================
July 29, 2010
. This morning I had a dream. This is unusual because I don’t dream, at least I don’t remember them. But I remember this one: I was left alone on the bridge of a big ship. I had not been given a course to steer the ship. There was nobody there to ask. I knew that we were on a trip from Europe to America. So I knew that we had to go in a Westerly direction. I checked the compass. And this was one of the more lucid moments in the dream. I strained to read it but the dial was either unreadable or it didn’t work at all. But I knew that it was noontime and the sun was out. So it had to be in the South. I don’t remember in which direction the ship was heading but I remember that we were going in the wrong direction. I brought the ship around into a westerly direction so that, when a more competent person would show up, we wouldn’t be too far off course. I woke up with a good feeling: I had done the best I could, given the knowledge and the equipment, the steering wheel, I had to work with. Right after the dream the thought abut the invention of the steam-engine came to mind.
. If my shadow was behind that dream (A) and the thought (B) then it wanted me to connect it with what I had said earlier in my blog. …
In the last section I said: “For whatever reasons we ‘Repeat(@1)’ the truth, we are stepping down an abstract thought (B) to a more concrete representation or be lief (C, pistis at 509d of Plato’s Republic). This is why I automatically (E6) noticed ….” The unusual thing in my dream was that the ship had no automatic pilot. I mean you don’t leave somebody alone on the bridge of a ship without it being on automatic pilot.
. What I had to do to bring the ship back on course was to think (B). I had to do with Sensitive Energy (E5) what an automatic pilot does automatically (E6).
. What we do when: “For whatever reasons we ‘Repeat(@1)’ the truth, we are” programming ourselves to do automatically, with Automatic Energy (E6)” what otherwise we have to do intentionally with Sensitive Energy (E5).
. If the program (C) does for us what we would do intentionally (B), if we are aware (A) “Enough(Zu)”, then all is fine. If not, if we don’t program ourselves, if the social engineers do it for us, then things are not fine. They are fine for our political masters, but not for us. The more good programming, or “DeProgramming (PUÜd)”, we do for ourselves, the better because the less bad programming the social engineers can manage to slip past our intellect (B). Eckhart Tolle comes to mind here. “Awareness” (A) is all you need, if you are a bhakti (A) or raja (C) yogi. But if you are a jnana yogi, you may not have all the awareness you need. But jnana yogis have all the intelligence (B) they need. That’s why they have to step down E5 to E6 so that the right thoughts kick in automatically. There is a different approach the four different types of yogis must follow. I have spent a year in England at Sherborn House. It was a school modelled after Gurdjieff’s Fourth Way School. It is raja yoga. I was far “Enough” along my own “path of knowledge” (B) to know that them telling me that I have to follow their path was wrong. Three Month before the end of the course I went to Mr.B, as we called J.G. Bennett, to tell him that I am going to quit. He bent the rules a bit for me to enable me to stay for the rest of the year.
. As I move along my own path I pay more attention (A) to the thoughts (B) which pop into My head. I ask “Why?” more often. I programmed myself that Way. So why did that thought about the invention of the steam engine pop into my head? …
Steam power was first used to pump water into water towers. Those original pumps were like big hand-pumps The plunger dropped down by gravity and then it was driven up by steam pressure. Some worker had to spent all day to turn the stem on when the plunger was on the bottom and off when it was on top. A rather boring job, don’t you think? Then the job must have been given to a jnana yogi (B). Thinkers (B) don’t just do what they are told to do, they think (B) about what they are doing. So this guy put a trip-ever above the arm which moves the plunger to turn off the steam when the plunger is on top and he put another trip-lever below the arm to turn the steam on when the plunger was on the bottom. And that invention was the forerunner of the steam engine. So what do we have here in terms of what I have said before?
We have a stepping down of E5 to E6, from doing something manually (E5) to doing the same thing automatically (E6).
There is a blatant error in the same last section. “I said: “B aligns itself to B ….” If you found it and have corrected it, you will have benefited: if not then Not.
. There is another error in the July 27 section. Any two-digit identifier, which starts with a numeral, unless it is a radical number, is not from the Ching. It is only in the Neiye.
. The radical number of Szu or Ssu(8i) is 61. Its dictionary equivalents are: “To think, reflect; meaning”. It is not in the Ching. In line j, I identify the same character as “8h”. If you found that error and corrected it, fine; if not then not.
. I guess that my shadow wanted to draw our attention to that very important passage. Line h starts with “Vital-energy”(#E). The equivalent is from Harold D. Roth. In the Ching, Ch’i(#E) is in chapters 10, 42 and55. The equivalents we get from Star are: “breath, vital force, power, spirit.” You can use different translations to see how different translators have translated this character.
. In Ching 42, J.Wu has: Yin and Yang, “Deriving their vital harmony from the proper blending of the two vital Breaths (#4#EYIdoHo).” For the same five characters Wing has: “ Their blended Influence brings Harmony.”
. Ch’ung(#4) is in 04, 42 and 45. Its primary dictionary equivalent is: “To dash against …. (#416 in my big Hongkong dictionary)”. Here it must be referring to the opposites of Yin and Yang. Yi(YI) can be translared as “By”, “For”, “By-means-of” or “Because-of”. Wei(do) is often best translated as “To ….” And then fill in the verb the context demands. As in “To find the Truth (doA1).”, or “To give It another Name (do ZMg)”. The dictionary equivalents of Ho(Ho) are “To unite; filling [in]; harmony with”. That should get you going on it. …
. In Ching 55 J.Wu has: “To control the breath by the will is to overstrain it (Hs%e#E7357)”. For the same five characters Wing has: “To be conscious of Influence is called strength.”
Both J.Wu and Wing have accompanied their translation by the Standard text. So we can see that they have translated the same characters. When my two favourite translators come up with translations as different as this, we know that Lao Tzu has given us homework to do. …
Hsin(Hs) is in 03, 08, 12, 20, 49 and 55. Its dictionary equivalents are: “Heart, mind; center”.So officially it can refer to the heart (A) and to the mind (C), but the context it is in can also demand the intellect (B). In fact, B is the connective in A-B-C.
. Shih(%e) means cause or to cause. Yüeh(73) is “used as an expletive (2712)”. No matter how you translate it, you are always right in the syntactic dimension of semiotics; in the semantic dimension you are only right if what you say makes sense.
. Ch’iang(57) means “To force, compel”.
The only word left to define is Ch’i(#E). It is a keyword in the Ching and in the Neiye. It would be nice to be able to “Identify(Mg)” it in terms of Mr.B’s Dodecad, the 12-term system. …
Could it be Vital Energy (E7)? …
Now the question: What “Guides(8h)” it?, can be answered. …
Tao(8h) is not in the Ching. So I have identified it by the Chapter and line number it is at in the Neiye. Its radical is 41. Its equivalents are: “To lead, guide, teach”. Let’s look at it again:
8h: “Vital-energy, when Guided, Will Produce (#E8h$pSg)” life.
8j: “Life Will produce Thought (Sg$P8J)”.
. At Ching 2.2,1 have the same problem with Shêng(Sg): …
“Existence and Nonexistence Mutually Produce (YUWUmtSg)” life. Shêng(Sg) means to produce, to give birth, and life. Have your pick.
. If Ch’i(#E) is E7 then we would know what “Guides” it. …
A guides B, B guides C and C guides D. Energy is stepped down from E4 to E5, from E5 to E6 and from E6 to E7.
. My systematics here, still has to be validated or invalidated, but before you can test a theory (B) you must have one.
================================================
July 28, 2010
. THE SECRET SOURCE by Maja D’Aust and Adam Parfrey came to mind automatically (E6) when I was quoting from Ching 58 and 78 in the last section, but I didn’t follow that line of thought because it would have caused me to leave the line of thought I was on yesterday. So I will follow it now:
. The footnote of their book is: THE LAW OF ATTRACTION IS ONE OF SEVEN HERMETIC LAWS * HERE ARE THE OTHER SIX. This is what caused me to buy the book. The seven Laws are described from page 72 to 78. Because I am interested in these Laws I read these pages more than once. For whatever reasons we “Repeat(@1)” the truth, we are stepping down an abstract thought (B) to a more concrete representation or belief (C, pistis at 509d of Plato’s Republic). This is why I automatically (E6) noticed the Correspondence between WHAT Hermes was saying and WHAT Lao Tzu was saying. The words are different, but their content is the same.
. By noticing the same content in different words, we are carrying out an instruction Lao Tzu gives to his students: Make “Many Few (TO$q)”! Question: …
Many what? …
“Repetitions(@1)” is only one possible answer, but it is relevant here. What is the next question? …
How can I reduce the number of repetitions required to step down E5 to E6? …
A specific question deserves a specific answer. ...
By being more aware (A) of what you are repeating, or by …
Thinking (B) about what you are repeating. Once you understand (B) it, no more repetitions are necessary. You have stepped down a thought (B) to a representation (C).
. For instance, on page 73 we have the Law of CORRESPONDENCE: “As above, so below”, but that’s what Lao Tzu says all over the place: As above, in “Heaven, so Below (Tn -)”, on earth. So the thought (B) was already a representation (C) before I even read it on page 73. The same goes for the Law of POLARITY “Everything is Dual; everything has two poles; everything has its pair of opposites”. But that is Lao Tzu’s “DyAd(dyad)” and he is telling us the same thing about it. So, again, no repetitions required.
. The Law of CAUSE and EFFECT is what the Hindus call the law of Karma. When Jesus said that we have to reap what we sow, He was referring to that same law. So when Lao Tzu said: Make “Many Few”!, it didn’t just mean: Make many repetitions few but it can also mean: Make the content of “Many words” the same. And that doesn’t only refer to his own words but to the content of other words written in other books and in different languages.
. “Other Teachers, What they Teach I Also Teach (mn Z#lme08#l).”
. Chih( Z) is a pronoun and the first time he uses it here, it represents “Teachers”. But after this complete sentence he threw in another Chih( Z). Lao Tzu never wastes words, so what does that seemingly redundant Chih( Z) at the end of a “Complete(cm)” sentence mean? …
“…. if “It( Z)” is true.
. The Laws, which came automatically to mind when I quoted from Ching 58 and 78 were the Law of VIBRATION: “Nothing rests; everyting moves; everything vibrates.”, and the Law of RHYTHM: “Everything flows, out and in; everything has its tides; all things rise and fall; the pendulum swing manifests in everything; the measure of the swing to the right is the measure of the swing to the left; rhythm compensates.” This is why this Law can also be called the Law of COMPENSATION.
. The quotes from Ching 58 and 78 are: “The Ab-Normal ( HWU%8) becomes the Normal(%8), which
In-turn Becomes Abnormal (Fudo#a)”.
. Properly “Aligned Words Likely Reverse (%8C2JO$l)”.
. From the Ching I went to the Neiye.
8a: If you are “Able to Align (ab%8) yourself with the level above your own
. . then you are Able to be Tranquil (ab^a)”. And
8b: “Only Then (Ja4R) will you be Able to do the Fixing (ab8b)”.
. The picture of Ting(8b) is “Alignment(%8)” under a “Roof(Rad 40)”. Its dictionary equivalents are “To fix, stop; determine; tranquil”. Star gives us more equivalents. The picture reads: Bring, what you have “Aligned” yourself to, under your “Roof”. Make it your own. Or, in light of semantics (B): Step it down!
. With this bit of information Neiye 8 makes a lot more sense.
In the last section I said: “The connective in the B-C-D ‘TriAd( 3ad)’ is on level C. It is the judicial branch” of government. Each of the four classes of society is a triad. The three branches of government are the “impulses” or the three components of government. Similarly the C-D-E8 triad is the economic sphere (D). The E3-A-B triad is the spiritual sphere (A), and the A-B-C triad is the intellectual sphere (B). In an “Intelligent Man’S Government (wsmn Z85)” the unelected advisors (B) make the decisions, not for the people (A) but for themselves (B). Knowledge is power and “Wise Men (wsmen)” are using this power to serve their own ends. This is nothing new, The Brahmins (B) of India have done it for a long time. Ching 5 comes to mind: There are “Wise Men (wsmn) who are InHuman (PU%5)”. Do we need Lao Tzu to tell us that? …
If you study the Bhagavad Gita, the Ching, the Neiye or the Bible the Way they have to be studied, many things, the social engineers are able to make us blind to, will come to light.
. To illustrate that each of the four social spheres is a triad I said next: “Even in our timocracy (B), C aligns itself with B and tells D WHAT B wants the people, that’s us, what to do (D) and to believe (C).”
. There is a syntactic error in this sentence. It is easy to see. …
As an exercise, please correct it. …
“B aligns itself to B and makes us do (D) and believe (C) what B wants us to do and to believe.” But even when you correct the mistake, as I have done here, there is a subtle hint in the wrong sentence that got lost in translation. Can you see it? …
If you can’t see it, don’t feel bad, I couldn’t see it either right away. If you know HOW our political masters gain and maintain their power over us, please try again. …
Social engineering is the science in which the people are made to believe that we ave a democracy (A) when in reality we have a timocracy (B). All you have to do is read Republic and ask yourself which one of the four governments, Plato has described there, is the one we have. That this is not common knowledge is proof of how efficient the science of social engineering really is. But our shadow can see the big picture, it just can’t see the details we can see. So my shadow made me say that that our politicians (B) make us want to do “what [they tell us] to do (D) and to believe (C)” their “official version” of the truth. What they are getting away with is hard to believe and they are getting away with it because it is so hard to believe. Ching 69 comes to mind again: Of
“Calamities There-is-none Greater Than Underestimating (ÜfMOTAto$j) the intellectual, political and economic powers of our Enemy(âb)”.
. The situation our political masters have created, not just here in Canada but in the whole world, can be called a “Calamity” and, if Lao Tzu is right, then our gullibility is at least partly to blame for it. As Plato said: “The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs, is to be ruled by evil men.” Do we need Plato to tell us that? …
==================================================
July 27, 2010
. In Rudolf Steiner’s Threefold Social Order, the economic sphere (D) and the political sphere (C) have been described well. The intellectual sphere (B) has been described poorly, and level A of Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)” has not been described at all, it is missing. If a theory (B) is true then it will work; if not then not.
. Each member of one of the four social spheres, or classes, has three social functions or duties: “Align(%8)” yourself to the level above your own! Do your own thing! And step it down for the members of the class “Below( -)” your own.
. Chêng(%8) is in Chapters 08, 45, 57, 58 and 78 of Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching.
08:
Proper “Aligning is Goodnes in Governing (%8gd85)”.
. The “Government(85) is on level C but WHAT is proper “Alignment” is determined in the legislative branch (B) of government. The connective in the B-C-D “TriAd( 3ad)” is on level C. It is the judicial branch. The executive branch is on level D. Even in our present timocracy (B), C aligns itself with B and tells D WHAT B wants the people, that’s us, what to do (D) and to believe (C).
45:
“Pure Tranquility Makes those in Heaven (B) and the two levels Below it (C and D) to do the Aligning (#T^adoTn -%8)”.
58:
“The Ab-Normal becomes Normal ( HWU%8%8) and it
In-turn Becomes Abnormal (FUdo#o)” again.
78:
Properly “Aligned Words Likely Reverse (%8C2JO$l)”.
Line . There is an even better description of Chêng(%8) at Neiye 8: If you are
a: “Able to Align (ab%8) yourself with the level above your own then you are
. . Able to be Tranquil (ab^a)”. And
b: “Only Then are you Able to do the Fixing (Ja4Rab8b)”.
c: “Fix the Mind In your Center (8bHsÜp =)”!
. The question arising from the verb alone is? …
Fix what? ...
The answer is there: “the mind (C) in your center. We have the B-C-D triad here. In it, C is the connective, it is in the center. So far, so good, but is there something else that is not clear? …
What is this “Fixing(8b)”? …
The character only appears Ching 37. That’s why it has no two-digit identifier from the Ching. Lao Tzu says there that “By-means-of Tranquility those in Heaven (B) and Below it (C and D) Are-going-to, all by themSelves, do the Aligning (YI^aTn -41Tu8b)”.
. Let us jump to line h. When
h: “Vital-energy is Guided there Will be the Generation (#E8h$pSg” of life.
i: “Life Will produce Thought (Sg$p8i )”.
j: “Thought Will produce Knowledge (8h$pkn)”.When there is
k: “Knowledge it Will determine when it is time to Stop Yi (kn$p$iYi)”. Of
l: All the Mind’S Forms (3aHs Z@k)” if one of them
m: “Bypasses the Known boundaries then this causes a Loss of Production (#jkn37Sg)”.
. If one component of an N-Term system is weak or missing then the system can’t work at full capacity or not at all.
. Ching 44 sheds light on line k: “Knowing when to Stop means No (kn$iPU)” loss of production.
. I am not telling you anything new here. These things were known for thousands of years. I am just learning from Lao Tzu HOW to read it.
==================================================
July 25, 2010
. In the last section I said that I had run out of the energy I need to continue to work on my boat. If you have understood the last section you will probably agree with me that putting the boat on the backburner was not a bad idea. Many ideas I express in this blog are not old hat to me, they come to me when I study the ching the Way Lao Tzu says it has to be studied. We have to start with words and syntax. Words (C) are the containers of ideas (B). the Ching is designed in such a “Way(A1)” that if you work on the words, the ideas they contain will emerge and, having emerged, will give meaning to them.
. In the July 21 section I said that “the next step is …. Building the outriggers.” For my boat. But I haven’t even started on that yet. So yesterday I wrote a little note and stuck it to the bow of my boat: “I am looking for a partner. No phone, no E-mail, just snail mail: Peter Franke 914 – 20 West Lodge Av. Toronto ON M6K 2T4”.
. The bow is facing East on that floating dock in the Rees Street slip, so that only the boaters who have a rack on that dock can see it but now, if you are reading this, you saw it too The idea is to get a 50% partner. Now, that the boat is there ready to be tested, you can test it yourself, or have an experienced kayaker test it for you, to see if it is worth to invest your time and money in producing a marketable kayak. In theory, it should sell well, but you don’t have to take my word for it As far as I can see, it is the better mousetrap. A marketable kayak would be lighter and narrower than my prototype and it would have a deck like a kayack. My prototype is intended to carry sails because that would be the next step. Right now, I would help to build that more efficient kayak. After that you can be on your own, I would merely become a silent partner to invest my time and money in the Ching and the Neiye.
. If I get enough money from the boat, I will hire a “WordEr(C2er)” to do for all 5000 characters in the Tao Te Ching what I have done for the first three paragraphs of Ching 28 at the end of the last section. That is my “job-description”. If you can do it for a price I can afford, you can start on it right now. I am willing and able to pay you $10 per hour, but I have to see results. It is more like piecework. After that I need the Chinese character lookup table. For that you will need a Chinese wordprocessor.
. The idea of giving you only the two-digit identifiers for Ching 28.1 to 3 is for you to get other translations and to compare them with each other. *a, *b, *c, *d and *e are only in this chapter, so you got the phonetics and radical numbers for them. If you could still get my dictionary concordance, you could get this information plus the concordance from it. But it got lost. It is as if my shadow said: forget it, this isn’t your job. If nobody cares about the Tao Te Ching, why should you care about people who don’t care? …
And because my ego (B-C-D) more or less agrees with my shadow on this point, the file got deleted. If you want to construct your own dictionary concordance, use Jonathan Star’s scholarly work. His dictionary concordance is from page 295 to 336.
. The first entry is “A (170) ….”. It only appears in Ching 20. You don’t want to clutter up your concordance with those. So you write an asterisk (*) beside it.
. The next entry is “AI (30) ….” It is in Ching 31 and 69. So your two-digit identifier starts with an @, an ä or an â. I wrote @A beside Ai(@A).
. The two-digit identifiers which are in three chapters start with an # or a Ü. If they are in four chapers, it starts with a $. And if you have the same keyboard I have know what the next two characters are.
. Characters which are in more than 6 chapters deserve a better mnemonic, and because they happen more frequently, you will likely find them in my blog.
. Exposing yourself in any Way to the Tao Te Ching is beneficial, but a more practical Way is to be preferrable.
. Star’s translation of the Ching runs from page 14 to 94, 81 pages. There he not only uses the standard text J.Wu and Wing are using and which he is using in his VERBATIM TRANSLATION but he uses all existing texts. We know by now what the standard text for Ching 46 is. Here is Star’s translation of it:
When Tao is present in the empire
. . men follow their own nature
. . and riding horses work in the fields
When Tao is absent from the empire
. . men go astray
. . and war horses breed on sacred ground
There is no greater loss than losing Tao
. . No greater curse than desire
. . No greater tragedy than discontentment
. . No greater fault than selfishness
Contentment alone is enough
Indeed, the bliss of eternity
. . can be found in your contentment
Since we know the standard text of Ching 46 we can see that this is more of an interpretation than a translation of it. But, after we have worked on the standard text, we can also see that this is a very good interpretation. Any interpretation is justified when the standard text is given as well because then you are enabled to verify the translation.
. The “Means(YI)” Star gives us to verify his translation is his VERBATIM TRANSLATION. It runs from page 100 to 255. In it we get the picture, the radical number, the phonetic and the equivalents different translators have used for each one of the 5000 characters in the book. There is necessarily a lot of duplications because there are only about 800 characters in the dictionary concordance which runs from page 295 to 336. Since about half of them are in only one chapter and, thus, we don’t need them in a concordance. One Way to get around the duplications is “By-means-of(YI)” the two-digit identifiers.
========= July 26, 2010
. At the beginning of the July 23 section I have conveyed a very important “Concept(B1)”, I got from the Tao Te Ching. It is important “Enoug(Zu)” to deserve a better description, ideally from a communicator (C). But let me try: ...
As the bhakti yogis (A) try to get the jnana yogis (B) to interpret their poetry (A), so the thinkers (B) try to get the raja yogis (C), to communicate (C) their ideas (B). Why? …
So that the karma yogis (D) know WHAT to do.
. The poets (A), thinkers (B), communicators (C) and pragmatists (D) have a threefold social function. They must: “Align(%8)” to the level above them, do their own thing, and step it down for those on the level “Below( -)” them.
. Lao Tzu has left gaps in his book which have to be filled in by his students. That’s how they learn their lessons. Try it. But “KnowErs are Not good with Words (knerPUC2)” They also leave gaps in their interpretations of the Ching. These have to be filled in by the “WordErs who Don’t always Understand (C2erPUkn)” WHAT Lao Tzu is sayingThey know HOW to communicate, but not WHAT to communicate. As B must step down the message from A, so C must step down the message from B.
. Now, will a communicator please say (C) this better? Why? …
So that the pragmatists know WHAT to do (D)
. There is a difference between religion (A), philosophy (B), politics (C) and economics (D) but all of tem are indispensable components of the “Great System (TAâx Wing)” If any one of these four parts interferes with the other parts, it interferes with the proper functioning of the “Great System”. A few members in the interfering class win while the rest of us loose. If a critical mass understands the “Concept(B1)” I am trying to describe in “Words(C2)” here, we are producing a win-win situation. The members of a few ruling families no longer “Get” more than “Enough” but all of us will “Always have Enough (CnZu)”.
. As I said, this concept, I got from Lao Tzu is important. This means that you will get it from other teachers as well. The division of labor is known in hinduism because the four yogas are known, and they are know because the concept of dharma is known. The word is often translated as “duty”. Our dharma is our “responsibility”. If you have a Bible concordance, see what you can find on it.
=================================================
July 24, 2010
. As far as my boat goes, I am like a car which has run out of gas. I have no energy left for it for now. So let us continue where we have left off in the last section. There I have listed the 19 chapters Ch’ang(Cn) is in. In Ching 1 it appears four times. Twice in 1.1 and twice in 1.3. We have already done 1.1,1 (Chapters 1, paragraph 1, sentence 1). So here comes 1.1,2:
“Identify the IdentifyAble MgptMg) to get its Opposite(Fy), the IdentifiEd (CnMg).” This is the “NamAble(ptMg)” and only now can you
“Name the NamAble to get its Opposite, the NamEd (MgptMgFyCnMg)”.
1.3:
“Constantly Have-no Expectations (CnWUYÜ) In-order-to Perceive (YIKn)
The Mystery ( H#1).
Constantly Have Representations By-means-of-which (CnYUYÜYI) you can
Perceive Your Boundaries (Kn H*1)”. *1 = Chiao60. These are the Koshas, in Sanskrit. They determine what your dharma is and what it is not. So to “Always(Cn)” remember that is very important.
. At Ching 1.4 we also have the idea of “Repeating(@1)” something “Again(@1)” and again. So this idea of “Constantly” “Repeating” things is in both paragraphs. This brings Ching 48 to mind:
“LearnIng is Daily Increasing (doÜd%q$s) your knowledge;
TaoIng is Daily Decreasing (doA1%q%w) it.
Decrease It and Repeat the Decreasing (%w Z@1%w)”!
Ching 3:
. The rulers in an “Intelligent Man’S Government (wsmn Z85) will ….
Always Cause the People to be Without Knowledge (Cn%eMnWUkn) and
Without the Desire (WUYÜ)” to know.
Ching 16:
“To find peace is to fulfill one’s destiny (SiisFUäG J.Wu).
To fulfill one’s destiny is to be constant (FUäG73Cn J.Wu).”
To fulfill your destiny is doing your dharma. For the last four characters Wing has:
“The cycle of destiny is called the Absolute (FUäG73Cn)
Knowledge of the Constant Leads-to Insight (knCn7372)
IgNorance of the Constant (PUknCn) causes one to run
Blindly into disasters (*d%cÜc J.Wu). (*d = Wang38.)
Knowing the Constant cause one to become Tolerant (knCn$m) being
Tolerant Will cause you to become Impartial ($m$pÜg) being
Impartial Will cause you to become a Leader (Üg$p E) being a
Leader Will get you to Heaven ( E$pTn). having reached level (B) or
Heaven you Will reach the Tao (Tn$pA1). having reached level (A) or the
Tao you Will Last-long.” Why? …
Because when you know the “Truth(A1)” you “Always have Enough (CnZu)”.
. Ching 46 is the one we started out with. Please notice how Ching 16 and 46 shed light on each other.
. Ching 28 has an amazing structure. It will be the last example I will give here:
kn H*a40 H@xdoTn -*bdoTn -*bCnTÊPU#DFU77to#F#G
kn H#J40 H *c doTn - #tdoTn - #tCnTÊPU*d FU77toWU%l
kn Här40 H $f doTn -kUdoTn –kUCnTÊ$pZuFU77to^i. When the
“Primal-simplicity(^i) Diversifies(äQ) Then(18) it is Made into Instruments (dout)
Intelligent People Use Them (wsmnus Z).
Then they Become Officers which serve Long (18do*elg) and
Thus the parts of the Great Systen Don’t (18TAâxPU) drift apart (äu).”
*a = Hsiung172. *b = Ch’i150. *c = Hei203. *d = Tê61. *e = Kuan40.
========================================================
“July 23, 2010
. Even without my shadow pointing them out to me, there are many details, which are left out of my previous sections, that could be filled in. But the idea is that a “WordEr(C2er)” gets the general ideas from my blog and than s/he fills in the details for his or her readers.
. This is what “KnowErs(kner) should be doing for the communicators (C). Lao Tzu leaves out many details for his students to fill in. That is the only “Way(A1)” he can get us to think (B). Let us pick Ching 46 as an example of this: In its premise he contrasts “Having the Truth (YUA1)” with “Not-having(WU)” it. This is the clue we need to understand the conclusion of the chapter. Let’s have a look at it: Of
“Calamities There-is-none Greater Than (ÜfMOTAto)
Not Knowing what is Enough (PUknZu). of
Evils There-is-none Greater Than (@uMOTAto)
Wanting to Get (YÜgt) more than what is enough.
. Therefore(KU)
Knowing Enough’S Enough (knZu ZZu) is the
Constant Enough Indeed (CnZuYi).”
The first thing we must do to learn a lesson, Lao Tzu has given us, is to pay attention to his words, phrases and syntax (C) he uses to convey his ideas (B) to us.
. A sentence is the whole which emerges through its words and, having emerged, gives meaning to them. The first two sentences, we have here, give us examples of unsatisfactory conditions. Conditions which are not good “Enough”, conditions which sooner or later have to change.
. After the “Therefore” Lao Tzu has “Identified(M)” a condition which is satisfactory, which does not have to be changed. And then he “Names(Mg)” it. The “Indeed” seems to support that interpretation. Yi(Yi) is “A final particle denoting that the sense has been fully expressed (4312)” It also denotes that we have here the “Name(Mg)” for the “Concept(B1)” which has been “Identified(Mg)”.
. The Tao Te Ching has been around for at least 2300 years and the “Truth(A1)” in it has not changed in all of these years. Thus it can be called the “Constant Enough (CnZu)” or, equally valid, what is “Always Enough”. If it is true then it doesn’t have to be changed.
. In contrast to this, there are the “official versions” of the truth we get from the mass-media. They can change from one day to the next. Sometimes an “official version” of the truth becomes so flawed that continuing to “Repeat(@1)” it becomes counterproductive. What now? …
The “official version”.of their truth is simply changed. We are not supposed to notice that. We are supposed to believe (C) the new version of the truth as blindly as we have believed the old one. There are some very good examples of this in some of the videos on 9/11. It is amazing what social engineers can get away with but there are limits to it. And our political rulers know it. If they didn’t know it then we wouldn’t have seen the $1.2 billion show of GESTAPO like force here in Toronto.
. Notice how my knowledge of the Tao Te Ching helps me to identify contradictions our political masters don’t want us to think (B) about. And I only know about one tenth, 1/10, of it. How much more could a person who knows 1/5 of the Ching “See(oo)”? …
. The rulers in an “Intelligent Man’S Government (wsmn Z85)” know that “Not Seeing what is DesieAble (PUooptYÜ) to see
Causes the People’s Heart Not to Stir (%eMnHsPU$a).” Now you know why our political masters have to dumb us down.
. If another person also knows 1/10 of the Ching but which is not the same part I know, if that person has studied different chapters than I have studied then, together, we would also know 1/5 of the Ching. And if more than two people gather together in a study group, then collectively we should know “Enough” of the Ching to get the Law of Attraction working for us. Those who have shall have more.
. Ch’ang(Cn) is a keyword in this chapter. It is in chapters 1, 3, 16, 27, 28, 32, 34, 37, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 55, 51, 64, 65, 74 and in 79. Let us look at the first one in Ching 1:
“Taoed and TaoAble (A1ptA1) object is the Opposite(Fy) of the
TaoIng (CnA1)” subject.
. In every “TriAd( 3ad)” there is always the actualisable, the actualizing and the actualized impulse. And the actualizing requires an actualizer. You can’t have an object without a subject.
. In every tetrad there are “Always(Cn)” these four “sources”.
That’s two down, about thirty to go. …
==========================================================
July 21, 2010
. In the section below this one I said that I am “procrastinating on my boat for another day”, but I didn’t. I finished that section by about 11:30. At about 12:30 I gave myself the following “job-description”: Put your life-jackets and kayak-paddles on your bike. Take it to your boat. Lock your bike. Take your stuff down to the boat. Pull your boat half way out of your rack so that you can turn it around. It is stored upside down to keep the rain out. Damage was done to the hull, but not bad enough to make it leak.
Put paddles together and put in boat. Put one lifejacket on and the other in the boat to sit on. Push boat, bow first, into the water.
. It was here, at this step, that I could really feel the resistance of my shadow. The lesson is here that if you give into your shadow, as I did yesterday, It will come back stronger the next time, as it did today. I knew that there would be resistance, that’s why I was ready to handle it, but it was stronger than expected. The last two steps were: Get in and start paddling. And I did. It was as windy today as it was yesterday but that didn’t prevent me from going up and down the slip for the test.
. The result was not much better or worse than expected. Considering the rough and uneven surface and the weight of my hull, I was very pleased to see that, when I stopped paddling, that the boat kept moving at a fairly even speed for a good distance. That would mean that wave-making resistance and drag was reduced to the intended minimum. I couldn’t get it up to the plane to also reduce skin-friction but a more experienced and stronger kayaker might be able to do it. With a sail and even perhaps only a pair of outriggers I might be able to do it too. The outriggers would add weight, but increase the planning surface and keep the surface more level. They would also make me feel more comfortable.
. I felt uncomfortable. This is only the second time I have kayaked and each time for less than ten minutes. So the next step is not more tests, but building the outriggers. After that comes the rudder and then the sail(s). Whether I can accomplish all of that in the remainder of the season remains to be seen.
. Now back to the tetrad: It consists of four triads in which A, B, C and D are the connectives. Only one of these is “Without(WU)” a C in it. Can you “Identify(Mg)” another triad without a C in it? …
Yes. It is the one in which D is the …
Initiating impulse.
==============================================
July 21, 2010
. In the July 15 and 16 section I said that the “Identifying(Mg)” is “a stepping down of” E5 to E6; and the “Naming(Mg)” is a stepping down from E6 to E7.
. The statement is incomplete. Why? …
Not two, but three triads have Ming(Mg) (C) in it. …
The four triads I have mentioned before are, E3-A-B, A-B-C, B-C-D and C-D-E8. The question: Which three of the four triads have C in it, is an insult to your intelligence, so I will not answer it.
. In the second paragraph of chapter one of Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching, he says:
“Without Ming is Heaven and Earth”S Conception (WUMgTnTI ZB1).
. With Ming is Wan Wu’S Mother (YUMgWnwU ZMU).”
. The Conception(B1)” of “All Things(WnwU)” on “Earth(TI)” takes place “Without Identification (WUMg)”. The outcome of the E3-A-B triad is a concept, or thougt, (B). Thinking (B) is not talking (C). But I have to talk to explain this concept to the “WordErs(C2er)”. The verbal (C) explanation you see here, is the outcome of the A-B-C triad. In all triads, the first “impulse”, or part, is called the initiating impulse. If the second term is the reconciling impulse, I follow Noam Chomsky and call it the “connective”. The last term is always the outcome of the process. In E3-A-B, it is a thought (B), in A-B-C, the outcome is a verbal (C) statement, in B-C-D, the outcome is physical action. Because our body (D) is of the same material substance the world (E8) is composed of, Aristotle has called this outcome the “material cause”. The effect of this cause is the change we bring about in the material world.
. Now, if a “WordEr(C2er) gets this, then we get the B-C-D triad. The outcome is physical (D) action in the world. This action can be the establishment of democracy. But whether this will happen is not up to the thinkers (B). I am not the connective in the B-C-D triad. The initian impulse is right here in this blog, but whether the communicators (C) want to connect the theory (B) to practice (D) is up to them. The B-C-D triad is working very well for our political masters. The politicians (C) are doing very well for themselves, but not for us.
. Do you think that procrastinating on my boat for another day was worth it? Do you think that democracy is more important than my boat? …
=================================================
July 20, 2010
. Ken Wilber is not the first writer who wrote about our shadow but he is the first one who drove that concept home to me. He said, starting on page 71:
“SINCE THE opposites cannot exist without each other, if you aren’t aware of both of thrm, you will send the rejected pole underground. …. The shadow, then, is simply your unconscious opposites. Thus a simple way to contact your shadow is to assume the very opposite of whatever you now consciously intend, wish, or desire”, which is what your shadow does not intend, wish, or desire.
. I had it happen to me with my boat: It was ready to be taken out to the space I got for it at the Rees Street slip. “I” said: Let’s go, and my shadow said: No you don’t. Yes, getting my boat there was tough and I did some damage to it, and the rain did some more damage. It took a lot of fudging: Acrylic caulking, body filler marine prime coat, blue top coat, and it is still a mess, but it should float.
. Yesterday I didn’t find errors in the July 16 section. So I went to Canadian Tire and bought the cheapest lifejacket and kayak paddles. It cost $186.47. I took my purchase to my boat to try it out. But my shadow said: No you don’t. And it had the last word. My boat is about three times as heavy as an average kayak. Of its 16 feet, 14 feet of the sides are sloping up about one foot above waterline. That is a lot of windage. That’s why I want to put up a sail to compensate for the extra weight. But I could still have tried it in the slip so it could only have been my shadow who turned out to be stronger than my ego (B-C-D).
. Notice the plural in the quote: Ken said: The shadow is your unconscious “opposites”. So there must be more than one shadow just as there are more than one ego-states in our ego. Since there are good and bad ego-states there must be good and bad shadows. The poles of a polarity are equals and opposites but they are also complementaries.
. Ken says on page 72 that “you will want to befriend” your shadow. The sole function of un-evolved egostates and shadows is to oppose, to maintain their state of separation. But the fact is that both poles are the parts of the same polarity. None can function properly without the other. And some ego-states are aware (A) of that, and the shadow who has helped me must know it too.
. Even tough I couldn’t find any errors in the July 16 section, the concept I have described there is in need of elaboration: Creative Energy
(E3) is stepped down by A (E4) to E5,
E4 is stepped down by B (E5) to E6,
E5 is stepped down by C (E6) to E7 and
E6 is stepped down by D (E7) to E8.
A is the connective in the E3-A-B triad,
B is the connective in the A-B-C triad,
C is the connective in the B-C-D triad and
D is the connective in the C-D-E8 triad.
. E3 and E8 are outside of our human system. In other words, A and D are with one foot in our “Feldraum”, our sphere of influence, and with the other foot they are outside of it. Only our own sphere of influence is what we are responsible for. In fact, each of the “sources”, the four parts of the tetrad, or the four classes, is only responsible for its own dharma or duty.
. I am reluctant to spell out these relationships between the four parts of the tetrad as I just did because I know that it turns people off. But all I need, is to reach that one communicator (C) who is able to understand this stuff and who is willing to do his or her dharma.
===================================================
July 16, 2010
. In the July 15 section I said:
“The ‘Identifying(Mg)’ is a stepping down of Sensitive Energy (E5) to Automatic Energy (E6); the ‘Naming(Mg)’ is a stepping down from E6 to Vital energy (E7).
. There is a mistake in there, can you see it? …
July 17, 2010 ======== No, I can’t see it either.
. My shadow can not only cause me to make mistakes and prevent me from seeing them. As you can see here, it can also cause me to see a mistake were there is none. Why? …
Because it wants me to tell you a bit more about the DIVISION OF LABOR:
Creative Energy (E3), through A comes to B.
Conscious Energy (E4), through B comes to C.
Sensitive Energy (E5), through C comes to D
Automatic Energy (E6) is manifested through D in Constructive Energy (E8).
. In other words, our body (D), the karmendriyas (E7), is the Aristotelian “material cause” and its effect is the change it produces in the world (E8). …
The DIVISION OF LABOR is all there. Each one of the four steps, we can see in the original IBM computer programming system, the construction business and other manifestations of the tetrad is a “TriAd( 3ad)”. Lao Tzu informs us that the components of “The TriAd (Tz 3ad) are ImPossible(PUpt) to Examine individually ($0*a) Because(KU) they are Undifferentiated And Act as One (#Obtdo 1)” unit. *a = Chieh149.
. J. G Bennett has told us in so many words that Systematics can help us to get our act together. How? …
The tetrad is the N-Term system on which the DIVISION OF LABOUR is based. We have to know it in theory (B) before we can translate the theory into practice (D).
. The “division of labour” described at Gita 18.41-44 is not a tetrad because “the Sudra” is not a caste-member but an out-cast. The system is a triad. The same goes for the timocracy we have. In a timocracy, not the people (A) make the decisions but the unelected advisors (B) of our politicians (C).
. Please Google: Protocols of Zion division of labor. That “division of labour” is not a tetrad. In it our political masters make the decisions. And, like the Brahmins (D) in India, the unelected advisors need more totalitarian powers of the GESTAPO type we have seen here in Toronto. Why? …
Because the demonstrators have shown that the social engineers are loosing control over an increasing number of citizens. Of course our political masters have already known that before they have provoked the protest march here in Toronto. Why would they spend 1.2 billion dollars on trying to intimidate and discourage us, and on testing their power? …
HOW else do you explain their under-reaction on Saturday and their over-reaction on Sunday? …
Do you think that they didn’t know WHAT they were doing? …
Do you think that they build that jailhouse on Eastern Avenue for nothing? …
Please think again. …
In light of the facts, this was only a practice run on their march towards dictatorship (C). Their equally costly gun controls are another step into the same direction.
Their failure to make us believe what becomes more and more unbelievable is forcing them to continue their march in the same downward direction.
===================================================
July 15, 2010
. Try to Google Duversity UK:
What you will get is the introduction to a file, but the file has “disappeared”. The file was about identifying te monad by colour. This must be important or it wouldn’t have disappeared.
. Identifying the monad is probably the most important investigative tool in systematics. Lao Tzu puts it as follows:
“Identify the IdentifyAble (MgptMg) to get its Opposite(Fy)”! After that you can …
“Name the NamAble (MgptMg)”!.
. To use colour to carry out these instructions is definitely an improvement to systematics. I don’t know “Enough(Zu)” about colours. I only know what I know, we can call it the white, and what I don’t know, which would be the black. Black and white are not colours. So the “DyAd(dyad) would be colourless. What about the “TriAd( 3ad)”? …
In her THE THOUGHT THAT FRACTURED THE INFINITE Almine talks about the three primary colours, blue, red and yellow. That these three form a triad can be inferred from the following statement on page 90: “There is instability when these three primary colours are separated.” If even one term of an N-Term system is “separated” from the whole, the system does not work.
. I don’t know “Enough” about colours to say any more about it. Let us, then, stick to the black and white basics;
. In J. G. Bennett’s systematics there are twelve N-Term systems. N = 1 to 12. The 12-Term system is the Dodecad.
. At Ching 1, Lao Tzu starts with “The DyAd (Tzdyad)”. There is the “TaoAble(ptA1) and its Opposite(Fy), the TaoEd.”
. Richard Wilhelm said that the Tao is like an “algebraic variable (ein algebraishes Zeichen)”. The example Lao Tzu gives of this is Ming(Mg). It is substituted for the Tao(A1) at Ching 1.1,2. At 1.2 he gives us a bit more detail:
“Without Ming is Heaven and Earth’S Conception (WUMgTnTI ZB1);
With Ming (YUMg) is the birth of all things (WnwU ZMU).”
. The “Identifying(Mg)” is a stepping down of Sensitive Energy (E5) to Automatic Energy (E6); the “Naming(Mg)” is a stepping down from E6 to Vital Energy (E7).
. When you understand the tetrad, that is when you have a working knowledge of it and the practical experience of it you can see that: As the customer’s “job-description” is stepped down to an algorithm, so the programmer’s “job-analysis” is stepped down to a computer program. And as the algorithm is stepped down to a program so the program is stepped down to physical action. You have to know the Law of Correspondence in theory before you can see it in practice. Question: What level on Plato’s “Divided Line (509d) is customer, programmer, coder and computer on? …
. The four “sources”, or parts of the tetrad, can be identified in terms of the 12 parts of the Dodecad:A = E4, B = …
E5, C = E6 and D = E7,
. The parts of the pentad are described at Sutra 14 of THE HOLY SCIENCE. Its five terms are: E4, E5, E6, E7 and E8.
. If you know the heptad then you can identify the first seven terms of the dodecad, E1 to E7. The Buddha’s 8-fold path Starts at E4, at the crossover point. It goes around the lower cycle, clockwise, from A to B, B to C, and C to D. Then it comes to A again but now it is called “Right Livelihood” You live right when you do your dharma. Then you continue anticlockwise around the top cycle from A to E1, E1 to E2, and from E2 to E3. But these are only seven steps. The eight’s step takes us to the crossover point again. …
We have something analogous to the octave in music. …
Start at A on the piano keyboard, using only the white keys. What is above A? …
Next comes B, then C, then D, then E, then F, then G, and then back to A again. It is not the same A you started out with, but it sounds the same. See how much we can learn from music? This is because the Law of Correspondence is universal.
. The seven white and the five black keys add up to twelve. Does that tell you something? …
. It is as Mr.B told us: Systematics can help us to get our act together. The social engineers are paid to prevent us from accomplishing that. But after we have learned the lesson in Ching 41.1, their work becomes counterproductive: …
If they “Don’t Ridicule (PU*a) the truth then we
Don’t have Enough Means To find out the Truth (PUZuYIdoA1).” *a = Hsiao118. It represents any activity, like making things, or people, “disappear”, which is intended to prevent us from “Finding-out the Truth (doA1)”.
. What I have said here is good stuff, but I wish that a communicator would say it better.
=================================================
July 14, 2010
. In 1973 J. G. Bennett told us already that some of his associates knew more bout Systematics than he does. If they know more then where is that knowledge? …
One way to get at some of the hidden knowledge is with the help of Lao Tzu and with the direct experience of the original IBM computer processing system.
. It seems that one section of my blog leads up to the next one. And WHAT came up is more important than my boat.
. At the end of the last section, below this one, I said: “…. If, in spite of their efforts, we get ….”. Now, after we have understood Ching 41.1, we can say: : If, because “of their efforts, we get the knowledge they [the social engineers] don’t want us to get, then we can clearly see WHAT they are doing.”
. Examples of this are the hijacking of the Canadian and German Green Parties, the “disappearing of the original IBM computer programming system and of semiotics.
. With semiotics we not only know WHAT they have done but also HOW Derrida has done it for them. Please Google: obscurantism Derrida
. The original computer programming system and the building trade are tetrads. That’s why they are analogous to each other, as I have shown in the last Yuly 13 section.
The whole emerges through its parts and, having emerged, gives meaning to them.
The B-C-D “TriAd( 3ad)” is a part of the A-B-C-D tetrad. Therefore the tetrad gives meaning to it. My own understanding of the tetrad comes from Lao Tzu and nine years of working on the original programming system. Just before the year 2000 many of the original programmers “disappeard”. Please do some Googling on the Y2K subject. …
. Another “job-description” is the following: We need a platform on top of computer chip hardware to give us the original IBM 1401 machine language. We can now add indirect and immediate addressing to it. A direct address is now a one digit alphameric line number, a to z, and a two digit numeric column number, 01 to 00.
. At first the system could be used as a game or learning tool. But ultimately we need it to get around the virus which might be ticking away in your computer already. If it is not already too late, do I have to tell you that getting this system going is urgent? …
===================================================
July 13, 2010
. We were talking about syntax (C). There are three types of sentences: Imperative, interrogative and indicative. There are five types of interrogative sentences: When? (in time), Where? (in space), Why, What and How. For example:
. The customer (A) tells the programmer or architect WHAT s/he wants because the thinkers (B) know HOW to supply his or her demand. Even though thinkers only do 1/3 of the total job, their algorithm is as important as the other 2/3.
. The programmer or architect tell the coder or contractor WHAT they want because the communicators (C) know HOW to supply WHAT they want. Even though communication is only 1/3 of the total job, this part of the job is as important as the other 2/3 of it.
. The coder or contractor tell the computer or subcontractors WHAT they want because the pragmatists (D) know HOW to supply WHAT they want. The computer (D) is as much in the pragmatic dimension of semiotics as the subcontractors are. Even though the physical work is only 1/3 of the total job, their practical (D) contribution to the task of supplying the customer’s demand is as important as the other 2/3 of it.
I have listed the three types of sentences in the sequence I did because that’s the Way, or HOW, we normally encounter them in life.
. “Actualize your Potential (A1pt)”! HOW? …
By “Taoing the TaoAble (A1ptA1).” Or, by “Doing what you Can Do (A1ptA1).”
In the first answer I have translated the sign of the “Potential(pt)” as a prefix and in the second one I have translated it as a single character. Both translations are valid.
I think that our alternative educational system is already up and running. All we need is a genius, like Ervin Laszlo to put it all together for us. There is a very important speech by John F. Kennedy about “infiltration” etc. It tells us why he had to be assassinated. I found the English text on an Italian video but I can’t find it again. I know from personal experience that the Green Party of Ontario was already infiltrated even before I joined it. It wasn’t even registered yet.
. Somewhere in J. G. Bennett’s DRAMATIC UNIVERSE there is mention of God’s “omnipresence”. If his work is on the Internet we should be able to Google it. I couldn’t. Sill, Google is a tremendous learning tool
. There are three dharmas: In concentration, you, the observing subject observe an external object. In meditation, you, the observing subject, are observing yourself. In meditation subject and object, body, mind and intellect (B, C and D) are the same. In contemplation, you approach God in three different ways: As the omnipotent, you pray to Him to guide you along His “Way”. As the omniscient, you pray to Him to manifest as the “Truth” in you. And as the omnipresent, you pray to him to make his presence in you known to you.
. I am trying to follow Lao Tzu’s advise, to keep it “Simple(^i)”. But I also remember what Mr.B told us: Not to make things simpler than they really are. That is really complicating things because the whole can’t emerge through its parts if even one part is missing. Only after it has emerged can it give meaning to its parts. As long as the parts are not working together, as “One( 1)” team, they mean nothing.
. The social engineers have two ways to confuse us: Complexification and oversimplification. Of course they have other means of controlling us but these two we can start to work on. HOW? …
By-means-of our alternative educational system. Our political masters will “Always Cause the People (Cn%eMn) to be Without Knowledge and Without the Desire (WUknWUYÜ)” to know. If, in spite of their efforts, we get the knowledge they don’t want us to get, then we can clearly see WHAT they are doing. And then we can do something like back-engineering on that to figure out HOW they are doing it.
====================================================
July 12, 2010
. Ervin Laszlo is right up to date: Google: Ervin Laszlo G20
. Back to work: Ching 25.1,6: The Tao’s
“Potential(pt), In-order To (YIdo) actualize it, there has to be the Mother(MU).”
. The “Mother” is the actualizer. She “Conceives(B1)” and gives birth to “All Things (WnwU)” in “The-World(Tn -)”.
. A “Simple(^i)” indicative sentence consists of a subject, a verb, and a predicate. If we substitute Noam Chomsky’s “connective” for the verb, we are identifying it as the reconciling impulse of the +=- or the -=+ “TriAds( 3ad)”. The “Positive( +) and “Negative( -) poles of a polarity are opposites and complements. In 25,1,6, the “Potential(pt)” is the ActualizAble(ptA1)”. You can’t actualize a potential you don’t have. In life, first comes the actualizable, then comes the actualizing, and then comes the …
actualized. If you have used the three dots as a signal to do some thinking (B) on your own then you would have benefited more from that exercise than is possible by just reading words (C).
. A “Simple” imperative sentence is a verb. Words added to the sentence merely give details. In the Ching, characters added to the verb provide the context which determines what kind of action the verb is to represent. For instance, Wei(do) represents any verb the context demands. Similarly, the Tao(A1) represents anything the context demands. This is true of many other characters in the Ching. The very first two charcters in the Tao Te Ching can be read as “The DyAd(Tzdyad)” Lao Tzu talks about at Ching 1.4,1. It means: Actualize your Potential (A1pt)”!
. In order to interpret (B) Lao Tzu’s words, we have to be able to read (C) them first. And for that, you need the syntax I have used here. If writers (C) don’t know these basics then there is something wrong with our educational system.
. In the inductive, the bottom up process, work in the syntactic dimension (C) of semiotics must precede the work in the semantic dimension. In the deductive process, the sequence is “Reversed($l)”.
. The Tao Te Ching is primarily addressed to the jnana yogis (B). But Lao Tzu must also teach syntax because, without it, you can’t read his book. For instance, Ching 63 is about the inductive approach to problem solving. First you concentrate on words, then phrases, then sentences, then chapters and then comes the book as a whole. That doesn’t mean that different sentences, paragraphs or chapters don’t shed light on each other, but to avoid confusion, we must follow Lao Tzu’s advise.
. Lao Tzu teaches philosophy (B) but many examples he gives come from politics (C). If philosophy were taught in “Philosophy” and politics in “Political Science” then the students would know that: “Each type of government enacts laws that are in its own interest, a democracy democratic laws, a tyranny tyrannical ones and so on; and in enacting these laws they make it quite plain that what is ‘right’ for their subjects is what is in the interest of them selves, the rulers” (The Republic at 338e)”. Do we need Plato to tell us that? …
. Now, please, put yourself into the shoes of our political masters. …
Can they really teach philosophy (B), politics (C), and the original IBM computer programming method. The system was taught in seven Weeks. In theory it would take less than ¼ of that today. Why “less than 1/4”? …
Because, by applying the division of labour, each member of the team either has to learn how to help the customer (A) to produce the “job-description” or s/he has to learn to do the “job-analysis” to produce the algorithm (B), or s/he has to learn how to do the “coding” (C), or s/he has to learn to operate or fix the computer. We don’t have to learn all four of these trades. But we must find out what our several “aptitudes” ( the word is all over the place in the Republic) are. But to determine what our particular aptitudes are might take another week of teaching an overview of the system as a whole.
. For instance, my area of specialization is programming (B). But I had to go out and and get a “job-description” out of customers (A) who often don’t even know WHAT they want. I had to do my own coding. And that was easy. The IBM 1401 machine language was very English-like. When the social engineers did their “improvements” on it, I quit. I also had to know how to operate the $1/4 million 1401 computer but that is no longer necessary. When my laptop got too flakey and I took it downstairs to a computer shop and they fixed it for me for $50.
. If you go back over my blog you can see how useful my knowledge of the original computer programming method is. There is no doubt in my mind that that’s why the social engineers have “improved” it.
. To see what they don’t teach us we have to learn it in an alternative educational system which is BY the people and therefore FOR the people. Again, Ervin Laszlo has something to say about this.
===================================================
June 11, 2010
Ching 25,1,6 (Tao Te Chingg chapter 25, paragraph 1, sentence 6): The Tao’s
“Potential, In-order To (ptYIdo) actualize it in The-World (Tn -) there has to be the Mother(MU).” Now let me compare this one with other translations:
“It [the Tao] may be regarded as the mother of the world (ptYIdoTn –MU J.Wu).”
. We started out from Ching 52. Let’s go back there:
52.1,1: “All-under-heaven have a common Beginning (Tn –YUB1)
This Beginning is the Mother of the world (YIdoTn –MU J.Wu).” On this line we have five of the six characters we have at 25.1,6. But here is is the predicate of the sentence. Here the sign of the “Potential(pt)” is missing. The question was: How did different translators translate Yi Wei (YIdo)? …
In this line we have “The-World (Tn -)” we have the “Mother(MU)” and “This Beginning (YIdo)” is left to identify as Yi Wei.
. Let us now see what Wing can tell us about Yi Wei.
25.1,6: “It [the Tao] can be regarded as the mother of the world (ptYIdoTn –MU).” And what do we get at
52.1,1?: “The beginning of the world (Tn –YUB1)
. . . . . . . May be regarded as the Mother of the world (YIdoTn –MU).”
. This is the kind of “wording”, work on words (C), you can do yourself. Let me just give you one more example:
25.1,6: MU This “something ….
Which may be called the mother of all under heaven (ptYIdoTn –MU Ellen M. Chen).”
52.1,1: “(shih) [B1]
Which is the world’s (t’ien hsia) mother (mu).” YIdoTn –MU. When the wording (C) in the syntactic dimension of semiotics is complete, the thinking (B) in the semantic dimension can begin. Doing the wording is not my dharma but I have to do it “In-order To” do my own.
. Doing somebody else’s “duty (dharma)” is bad:
“And do thy duty, even if it is humble, rather than another’s, even if it be great. To die in one’s duty is life: to live in another’s is death. (Juan Mascaró’s translation)” The wording, I had to do here, should be done by the “WordErs(C2er)”, but I have to do it in order to do my own dharma. But doing it is still a bad thing because the time we spent doing somebody else’s dharma is time we don’t invest in our own. We come into this world to do our dharma. That is our job, our mission. If we don’t do it then we might as well not have come. This is what is meant by: “To die in one’s duty is life: to live in another’s is death.” Many suicides can be attributed to this cause. People give up when they can’t see any meaning in their life.
=============================================================================
June 10, 2010
. Amy only comes to Toronto once a year but this last time we met, she left me with great hope for humanity. She is a good Cristian. Ordinarily discussions with born again Chritians degenerate into fruitless arguments. “Good arguers are not necessarily good people (gderPUäOäOerPUgd)” They serve our political masters in two ways: …
They help them to divide and conquer and to turn people away from religion. Is it “conspiracy theory” to suggest that this closed mindset may be produced by social engineers? …
Asking what born again Christians are doing, or what the RIOTERS were doing for our political masters here in Toronto is not conspiracy theory, it is logic 101. Since these people are serving our political masters, why shouldn’t we ask whether the social engineers have something to do with creating that particular closed mindset. With this mindset there is no hope for humanity, there is no hope for different religions to “Unitr($1)”. Only the people united cannot be defeated. And what unites us is the truth we all have in common. Obviously, the social engineers must prevent that truth from getting out.
. Amy is an example of a person who loves Jesus but who is not dogmatic about it. On her last visit to Toronto, I found out that she is not an ordinary born again Christian: She differentiates between the “Eternal Truth (CnA1)” in the Bible and what individuals and groups have added to it “In-order To (YIdo)” serve their own ends The eternal truth Amy seeks in the Bible is at the core of all religions.
. When two or three people with different backgrounds gather together in the name of truth, the truth, which is “One( 1)”, will be in the midst of them.
. If we understand the eternal truth in our own religion then it helps us to recognize that same truth in other religions. The truth we know helps us to identify it when expressed differently by others and to shed light on it. S/he who has shall have more. The truth in one religion can shed light on the truth in other religions. And now we can return to the Tao Te Chng.
We were trying to find out how different translators have translated Yi(YI) Wei(do) in Chapters 11, 19, 25, 41, 52 and others. Let us start with Ching 11:
11.1:
“ThirTy Spokes Converge on One Hub ( 3@z*a*b 1*c).
In-the-center(*d), where The Nothing in Smething ( HWUYU) is, there is the
Cart’S Usefulness (*e Zus).” *a = Fu159. *b = Kung12. *c = Ku159, *d = Tang102. *e = Ch’e159.
11.2
“Lumps of Clay are For Making Pots (*f*gYIdout)
In-the-center(*d), where The Nothing in Smething ( HWUYU) is, there is the
Pot’S User (ut Zus).” *f = Yen32. *g = Ch’ih32.
11.3
“Cut-out Doors and Windows To Make a Room (*h@B@CYIdo*i)
In-the-center(*d), where The Nothing in Smething ( HWUYU) is, there is the
Room’S User (*i Zus)” *h = Tzo167. *i = Shih40.
11.4 “Therefore(KU)”
“Existence, It is For Making Profit (YU ZYIdoLI) of
Nonexistence, Which is For Making Use (WU ZYIdous)” of existence in order to make profit of non-existence.
Have you noticed the paradox in 11.1? …
If you have no question, how can you ask it? …
Many translators have noticed the paradox that is why they have replaced :”Cart(*e)” with “wheel”. That’s how lessons get lost in translation. So what is the lesson? …
Reference to the Law of Correspondence is all over the place: As above, in “Heaven so Below (Tn -)”, on earth. Every time you “Repeat(@1)” thinking about an abstracy conept, you make it more concrete, you step down a more abstract thought (B) to a more concrete representation (C), Sensitive Energy (E5) becomes Automatic Energy (E6). What does 11.1 have to do with the Law of Correspondence? …
As “Spokes” and “Hubs” are the parts of wheels so axles and …
wheels are the parts of a “Cart”.
Ching 19:
“…. This TriAd (Tz 3ad) is used In-order To (or For Dooing) Literary (YIdoâm)” work.
Ching 25: Lots of work there. I have no time for it right now. With the help of a communicator, this work could be done not just more efficiently but better as well. .
================================================================
July 9, 2010
. Today it is raining, so I don’t have to work on the boat. I hope that the rain doesn’t do too much damage to it.
. In yesterday’s section, below this one, I said: that “we, the people, must get our act together”.
HOW can we accomplish that? …
Here is the algorithm: Those billions of people who want democracy must do their own thing for democracy. The “KnowErs(kner)” (B) must seek the “Truth(A1)” and after they have found it must explain it to the “WordErs(C2er)” (C). After the communicators (C) have understood it they must translate it into instructions the people can carryout. “KnowErs are Not good with Words (knerPUC2)”. They need the communicators to communicate the ideas for them. “WordErs Don’t Know (C2erPUkn).” They know HOW to communicate but not WHAT to communicate. They need the thinkers (B) to tell them WHAT to say. Lao Tzu says: “Unite Your Dust ($1 H@h)! This is Called (Siis) a Mystical Unit (Sü$1)”. This unit is a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. This is the Mystery or secret behind the success of our political masters. When we learn this “trick (the Republic at 548a)” it no longer works for them. Can you see now why they have to dumb us down? …
Why must we seek, find, share and use the truth? Because as …
truth is the lifeblood of democracy (A) so un-
truth is the lifeblood of timocracy (B).
. This statement is not a lie, as the social engineers try to make you believe (C), it is a truth which every serious seeker can find for him or herself. As I said before, there is nothing to be believed (C) in the Tao Te Ching. You either know it or you don’t.
“Knowing when you Don’t Know (knPUkn) is Healthy( +).”
. Shang( +) doesn’t mean “Healthy” but it is the “Positive( +) opposite of “Sick(@p” which we have in the next sentence. Shang( +) and Hsia( -) often serve as pronouns for what the context demands. For instance at Ching 2.2,4 Hsia( -) means “low” because it is the “Negative-opposite( -)” of “High(#h)”. Most translators have “low” but it is not what Lao Tzu has said. Lao Tzu wouldn’t have given us his paradoxes if “Nobody is Able to Understand (MOabkn)” them. He said:
“My Words are Very Easy to Understand (myC2%tezkn) Very Easy if you Practice (%tezpr)” my lessons. If you think that his paradoxes are mistakes and that you have to correct them, then you don’t accept Lao Tzu as your teacher. The answers different “Students(Ün)” get for their teacher’s questions should be the same. For instance the answer to 1 + 2 = …
should be 3. Anything other than 3 is the wrong answer. For instance, the customer’s (A) “job-description” is a specific request. If the supplier (B-C-D) supplies what the customer has asked for he gets paid; if not then not. Isn’t it much more satisfying to seek, find and share the truth than falsehoods? Why doesn’t it happen “Naturally(Tu)”? …
The answer to this question is social engineering. It is the science of preventing people from acting “Naturally”. We have to “Learn to UnLearn (ÜdPUÜd)” what the social engineers have programmed into us. Hsüeh(Üd) Pu(PU) Hsüeh(Üd) can also be interpreted as “Learn to DeProgramme” yourself.
. If I had the money to pay you for this work, the above can be called a “job-description”. However, I am certain that this work will pay off in the long run. The fact that our political masters are doing everything in their power to prevent us from doing this work is evidence that they don’t want us “To find out the Truth (doA1)”. And that means? ...
That we should do it.
There is a mistake in yesterday’s section: There are a lot of Yi(YI)s and Wei(do)s in Ching 48 but there is no Yi Wei in it. There are concordances which in addition to Characters also list phrases but I don’t have one of those anymore. So it took me longer to find the phrase and I made the mistake. I have also somehow deleted my dictionary concordance. My shadow must have made me do it. It can do it more easily because I am fed up with having to do this “wording”, this work on words. When you are in a negative state you are not aware (A) “Enough(Zu)” to prevent those mistakes, thus giving our shadow the opportunity to slip them in.
. What is needed is a list of the two-digit identifiers for each of the roughly 5000 characters in the Ching in the sequence in which they appear. Let me give you an example of what I mean by doing it for the first two chapters:
1
A1ptA1FyCnA1
MgptMgFyCnMg
. WUMgTnTI ZB1
. YUMgWnwU ZMU
KU
CnWUYÜYIKn H#1
CnYUYÜYIKn H*1 . *1 = Chiao60.
. Tzdyad$1CubtâoMg
. $1is ZSü
. Sü Z@1Sü^1 Z%1.
2 Tn – (As above, in “Heaven so Below”, on earth).
%2kn%b Zdo%b*2ug^k . *2 = Ssu69.
%2kngd Zdogd*2PUgd^k
. KU
. YUWUmtSg dfezmtcm lg*amt*b . *a = Tuan111. *b = Chiao159.
. . . .#h –mt*c .#a#bmtHo #c60mt#e . *c = Ch’ing.
SiYIwsmn
ChWUdo ZD2prPUC2 Z#l . WnwU%c86btPU@2SgbtPU . YUdobtPU%dKgcmbt*dCü .
heho*dCüSiYIPUC’ . *d = Fu57.
In the last two lines I have shown what to do if other translators, or you, have not identified sentences or paragraphs clearly “Enough(Zu)”. If I had the money to pay someone for doing this wording then the above could be called a “job-description”. Maybe, if the right person sees my boat idea (B) working (D) then I might get the money. This work not only needs to be done for the Ching but for the Neiye as well and there is also the Chinese character lookup tabl. I have already spent a lot of time on it but to put it on the backburner was the right thing for me to do. We can’t make our contribution to the establishment of democracy by trying to do the work we are not cut out to do. I am not using the word dharma because I hope that Amy will read this.
===================================================================
July 8, 2010
. In the July 5 section I said: Our political masters “know that they can’t maintain their ‘timocracy (See Plato’s Republic)’ much longer [And their actions prove it.]. …. There are only two possible ways to go from here: Their way or ours. Their way is downward [from B] towards Dictatorship [C] and our way is up to democracy” (A). This is not “conspiracy theory”, as the social engineers try to make you believe, it is straight forward logic. Are you still wondering why our political masters have to dumb us down? …
. You can’t go up and down at the same time. If you don’t believe it, try to do it.
. To go up, we, the people, must get our act together and learn how to make that decision collectively. To go down, our political masters must only take a few more steps in the direction they have taken here in Toronto this last weekend. I have never seen this “Concept(B1)”, and the facts (D) supporting it, as clearly as it can be seen now after that protest march. This message had to get out whether my boat was ready or not. It was ready to be taken out for three days. I offered money to a fellow member of Fat Alberts, an open stage here in Toronto, to help me holding the elevator doors open and to accompany on his bike on my trip from Queen and Lansdowne to Harbour-front at the west side of the Reese St. slip. I got up at 5AM and getting my stuff in and out of the elevator, with the doors constantly closing in spite of putting something between caused me to work up a sweat before I even got started. Getting across streetcar tracks was harder than I expected. At a moment of inattention I hit a bump with my trailer. Had one of my casters come off, I would have been stuck. But I made it. From then on it was just straightforward work. As Synchronicity would have it I run into my friend afterwards. He had to go busking instead of helping me. He made $2 all day. I would have paid him twenty times as much.
. My boat was ready to go and with every day of procrastination I started to feel worse. I just had to go ahead with it. Only rain and a more important idea than the one I have described in my last three sections would have been sufficient justification for delaying what had to be done. I could have sent out the following idea yesterday, but some of the truth in the Tao Te Ching had to wait for 2300 years. So a particular truth from it can probably wait another day.
We were working on the connective (if any) and the predicate of Ching 52.1,1. My translation of it is now: “In-order To (YIdo) understand the subject of 52.1,1, we can translate the predicate as follows: all in Heaven and Below (Tn -) it is conceived and given birth to by the Mother(MU).”
. I have said that one Way of evaluating a translation is to compare it with other translations. But, as far as I know, nobody has translated Yi(YI) Wei(do) as the connective, or verb, of the sentence, even though Wei(do) is clearly a verb. It can be translated as “To” and then the action demanded by the context can be filled in.
. So we have to figure out how this phrase has been translated in other chapters. It is in Ching 11, 19, 25, 41, 48, 79 and 81. …
===================================================================
July 6, 2010
. Turning the July 4 section into a flyer was easy. All I had to do is add a heading: “DICTOTORSHIP” and a subheading
: “What is it?” and there I had my flyer. I printed a hundred copies and started distributing them. When I run out, I printed another fity. Later that same day I proudly showed my masterpiece to a friend. He couldn’t believe that I could make such an obvious error in the heading and not know it. This shows you that our shadow can make us do things and not notice the mistakes we have made. We “Do these things Without Doing (doWUdo)” them intentionally. So my friend interpreted what my shadow has made me do. It said: “DICTaTORSHIP has come TO TORonto”. To me it meant that my friendly shadow wanted me to do some more work on the flyer. There I added, among other things, that our political masters “know that they can’t maintain their ‘timocracy (See Plato/[’]s Republic)’ much longer because their ‘official version’ of the truth is becoming unbelievable.” Those of us who refuse to be dumbed down can see the lies, we are expected to believe, for what they are. And the signs the protesters have held up for the press have shown me that the number of debunkers is growing.
. Our Prime Minister Stephen Harper has needed the RIOTERS for two reasons: To justify his GESTAPO type approach to “security” and to draw the attention of the press away from the signs the protesters were holding up for the press. The protesters want us to know what Harper & Co. doesn’t want us to know.
The “Insight(72)” that came to me this morning was that the Way my friend approached my DICTOTORSHIP is the way we have to approach the Tao Te Ching. Many translators assume that the hints Lao Tzu is giving us are mistakes which must be corrected. In this way the message gets lost in translation. That’s why we need more than one translation or, better still, learn to read the original.
==============================================================
July 5, 2010
. In my eagerness, I put out 150 flyers with the title DICTOTORSHIP. A friend pointed out that error to me. I thanked him for it. He thought that I was just playing humble and he commented on my clever play on words: DICTaTORSHIP has come TO TORonto. I didn’t know that I was that clever. To me it meant that my friendly shadow wants me to do a bit more work on that flyer. I will put the additions in square brackets and identify deletions by XXX.
“ ….In our [present form of] government the unelected advisors give our politicians the content of their words. [they tell them what to tell us] …. They know what our XXX [rulers are] up to.
. What must these facts mean to our political masters? XXX It means to them that before we XXX [get our act together], they must have a more totalitarian form of government in place.”
They know that they can’t maintain their “timocracy (See Plato/s Republic)” much longer because their “official version” of the truth is becoming unbelievable. There are only two possible ways to go from here: Their Way or ours. Their Way is downward towards Dictatorship and our way is up to democracy. We can’t sit on the fence much longer. The decision as to up or down can’t be made by them AND us. Either they OR we, the people collectively, will make it.
========================================================
July 4, 2010
. The “Above average Scholars ( +Ün)”, Lao Tzu is talking about at Ching 41.1 (the Tao Te Ching chapter 41, paragraph 1), are his students. When they “Hear the Truth (^dA1) they will Diligently study And Practice (#6btpr) Them( Z)”, his lessons.
. Students of the Ching must understand syntax “In-order To (YIdo)” understand what Lao Tzu is saying. The syntactic dimension of semiotics is related to its semantic dimension as a container is related to its content.
. Politicians have specialized in syntactics. They are so good with words that they can talk for hours without saying anything. Their words are empty. Lao Tzu says: “WordErs(C2er) Don’t Know (PUkn)” what to say. In our government, the unelected advisors give our politicians the content of their words.
. The unelected advisors and their politicians work as a team. Lao Tzu calls it a “Mystical Unit (Sü$1)”. It is mystical because it is a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. And that is the secret of their success. But, when reading the signs the protesters were holding up for the press on their march here in Toronto, we can see that the truth is getting out. It is getting out whether the media is distracted by RIOTERS or not. What the protesters demonstrate is that social engineering no longer works on an increasing number of citizens. The fact, that a great number of Canadians are holding on to their guns, is further evidence of that. They know what our government is up to.
. What must these facts mean to our political masters? …
In my blog, PetersTao.blogspot.com the three dots at the end of a line mean: Try to answer the question yourself. …
It means to them that, before we wake up, they must have a more totalitarian form of government in place.
====================================================================
July 3, 2010
. In the last, July 2, section I said: Everything in
“ . Heaven and Below (Tn -) it Has its own Conception (YUB2)”. …
There is a mistake in it. …
. I guess that my friendly shadow wants me to take another look at the first four characters of Ching 52. …
In that sentence “Heaven Below (Tn -) is the subject, “Has(YU)” is the verb, or connective, and “Conception(B1)” is the predicate. This can be translated as: “The-World (Tn -) Has been Conceived (YUB1)”.
. One Way to evaluate a translation is to compare it with other translations.
. The period in the original Chinese text is not behind the fourth character but behind the ninth. That means that the first four characters are the subject of the sentence and the remaining five characters are the connective and the predicate. In the Ching, the connective is often only implied. If it is here then the predicate is five characters long. These five characters can’t be translated as a sentence, it consist of one or two phrases. I have already given you three translations of it in the July 2 section. Let me give you a few more: “The world had a beginning,
Which can be considered the mother of the World.” This translation is by Robert G. Henricks. He is using the Ma-Wang-Tui texts. He also gives the original texts and both texts, here, are the same as the standard text J.Wu and Wing are using.
“1: The world (t’ien hsia) has an origin (shih), Which is the world’s (t’ien hsia) mother (mu).” Ellen M. Chen. She has divided the chapter into three paragraphs. These are the same divisions J.Wu has.
“The world has a maiden she becomes the world’s mother.” Red Pine. He also has the original text with his translations. Notice here that he has translated Shih(B1) as “maiden”.
“1. The Tao buddeth forth all things under Heaven; it is (in its manifestation as the Teh) the Mother of all.” Aleister Crowly. Not accurate but interesting. He has subdivided the chapter into five paragraphs, and this is the first one. I have more translations but this has to do.
. If we break the first paragraph Chen, J.Wu and Wing have into two so that the first paragraph is the one Crowley has then we have the four paragraphs I am looking for. Then the first two paragraphs are the premise and the last two are the conclusion of the chapter. That is a pattern we not only get in Ching 1, but in many other chapters.
. So the first four characters are the subject in the first sentence, or paragraph, the next two can be translated as the connective because Yu(YU) can be the verb in this sentence, and the last three characters are the predicate. Steiner’s fraction can simplify this for us: 4/9 + 2/9 + 3/9 = …
one. The predicate completes the subject. It is the complement of the subject. The connective can be thought of as the fraction line. We are getting abstract theories (B) mixed in with concrete facts (D) but I have to keep you on your toes somehow.
. Steiner helps us to follow two of Lao Tzu’s instructions: …
Keep it simple, and …
Don’t bite off more than you can chew! If we go on to the predicate before we have “Completed(cm)” the subject then we are not ready for the predicate. In other words, we are biting off more than we can chew “Intelligent People (wsmn) Througout(nG) a task Don’t Handle tasks that are too Big (PUdoTA) for them and Thus are Able to make their contribution to “Completing The Big (KUabcm HTA)” task.
. The corresponding passages come to mind automatically (E6) because over the years, these abstract thoughts (B) have become representations (C).
. Please look up the word “predicate” in Webster’s. …
“…. a statement about the subject of the sentence”. So, if we don’t know “the subject of a sentence” then …
we don’t know what the predicate is “about”. And, in the Ching, understanding a phrase can be a job and a half.
. Here is my translation of the first paragraph again: Everything in
“ . Heaven and Below it Has its own Conception(B2)”. Other than the (B2), can you see any other error? …
In the syntactic dimension of semiotics there is no justification for the “…. Its own …”. When judged from there that addition would be a mistake. But why did my friendly shadow want us to look at it again? …
Because in the semantic dimension this is not an error, that addition is necessary. Why? …
Because those In “Heaven” (B) and in the two levels “Below” it don’t “Conceive” the same thing. Each of the three sources of this “TriAd( 3ad)” conceives something different: The programmer (B) gets the “job-description” from the customer (A), the coder (C) gets the completed “Job-analysis” from the programmer and the computer (D) gets its instructions from the coder. It can’t “execute” the algorithm the programmer gives to the coder.
. Only this last bit of thinking (B) we have done just now belongs in the semantic dimension of semiotics, the rest belongs in the syntactic dimension. And it is not my dharma. Or is it? …
If, what I am saying here, is old hat to the communicators (C) then there is no need to tell them what they already know. But if these basic principles of syntactics are not taught in school, who is going to describe these principles? …
The social engineers, who run our educational system? …
==================================================================
July 2, 2010
. Shih is the phonetic of a Chinese character we are trying to understand, 38 is its radical number and B1 is the two-digit identifier I have assigned to it.
. Most characters are compounds, they consist of more than one “simple”. A simple is like a letter in a word but, when it comes to reading the Tao Te Ching, it is more correct to think of them as words in a sentence. Many characters can be read like a sentence. For instance Shih(B1) consists of thee simples which can be read: Seed enters Vagina of Woman. But most translators translate Shih(B1) as “beginning” because “Conception(B1)” comes before giving birth.
. In the Tao Te Ching, the character is in chapters 1, 14, 32, 38, 52 and 64. We have already worked on five of them in previous sections. Only Ching 52 is left. In terms of Steiner’s “fraction”, only 1/6 of the total job is left to be done.
Ching 52.1: Everything in
“ . Heaven and Below (Tn -) it Has its own Conception (YUB2)”, Heaven (B) conceives the Tao (A), the King (C) conceives Heaven and “Earth(TI)” (D) receives the instructions of the “King( E)”.
. The first four characters of Ching 52 can be read as a sentence, but it is really only the subject of a larger sentence consisting of nine characters. As is usual in Chinese, the connective is only implied. The last five characters, here, are the predicate of the sentence. Let me give you John Wu’s (J.Wu) translation of it:
“All-under-Heaven have a common Beginning (Tn -YUB1).
This Beginning is the Mother of the world (YIdoTn –MU).”
. My word for word stile of translation doesn’t work very well for the predicate, so let me give you R. L. Wing’s (Wing) translation first: “The beginning of the world May be regarded as the Mother of the world.”
“In-order To (YIdo) help you understand this, we can say that all in
Heaven and Below (Tn -) it are conceived by the Mother(MU).” Unless you learn to read the Tao Te Ching yourself, interpretations of it are bound to seem too far fetched. It takes work to learn to read it. I got started on it in a more serious way around 1970. But I think that I have reached a point now where I can save you some time. I have reached that point on June 19 and I have described it in the June 19 section: “ . Doing the work on Ching 37 in the previous two sections has allowed more of P’u(^i) to emerge through” what I have learned from Lao Tzu before. By intentionally “Repeting(@1)” the “Truth(A1)” you have found in one chapter you are stepping the energy down from E5 to E6, abstract thought (B) becomes computation (C). Computation is done in the syntactic dimension of semiotics. There the work is done automatically with Automatic Energy (E6) and, therefore, it is done more efficiently. For instance, when I was looking at the word “Mother(MU)” at Ching 52.1 I didn’t need the concordance to find out where else Mu(MU) appears, Ching 1.2,2 came to mind automatically: “With Name (YUMg) All Things (WnwU) are conceived By( Z?) the Mother(MU).” It is also in Ching 25.1. This happens because I know these chapters well “Enough(Zu)”.
. As I need help with my boat so I want to help others who want to study the Tao Te Ching. I only understand about 1/10 of the Ching, which is what I can teach, but I believe that this is the best Way in which I can contribute my part to the establishment of democracy.
==============================================================
July 1, 2010
. At the end of the June 27 section I said: that the “numerator” of the “fraction” we had arrived at is
“1/3. 2/3 of the ‘Task(D2) is still left to be ’Completed(cm)’. …”
. But the June 28 section starts with: “The people taking part in Saturday’s protest march ….” Much of what they said on their signs is information I am putting out here on my blog as well. HOW did our political masters draw the media’s attention away from the messages on those signs? …
By “protecting” a group of vandals so that they can burn police cars and break windows without interference from the police. What can we do about that? …
I was at the corner of Queen and Spadina when the marchers arrived there. From there I was walking east on the south side of queen. There were three lines of defence: Marshals from the march-organizers, behind them was a roughly three foot space. Then came a line of police officers and then about half a bock away the riot police. I was walking behind the marshals because it was too crowded in front of them. I didn’t think much of it because others were doing it as well. But on University, one of the marshals grabbed me by my jacket and put me in line. I gave him a dirty look but thought no more about it. But now, that we have the question, the answer came to mind almost automatically. What was the question? …
Why didn’t Chief Bill Blair assign some “of the 19,000 police officers under his command (Wormington)” to keep an eye on the vandals? And what is the answer? …
Since Blair ordered his men to leave these vandals alone so that they can their job undisturbed, the organizers of the march should have assigned some marshals to do what the police has failed to do. They could make a citizen’s arrest, and hold them for the police, or perhaps a bit longer (after all, there is no police around to hand them over to). And when Blair announces that he is going “to nab” these “RIOTERS” we could say: Yes Mr. Blair, here they are. And HOW are you going to “protect” them now?
. You have here a “job-description” of HOW to prepare for the next march and also an example of what “Those who knows the future (#cäUer)”, and who can think can well enough, can do. Can you see now why the social engineers have to dumb us down? …
. How can our political masters get away with what they are doing if a critical mass of us can think? …
They can only get away with it because we don’t know what the “job-description” (A) is they are giving to themselves, because most of us can’t think (B) as well as professional social engineers can, because we are not organized, or governed. (C) as well as they are and because we do (D), and believe (C) what they tell us to do and believe. Lao Tzu can teach those of us who have the potential for thinking HOW to “Actualize our Potential (A1pt)”. Let’s, then, get back to the Tao Te Ching.
. Steiner’s “fraction (Bruch)” comes in handy here: In the fraction 1/3, one is the numerator, it is what we “Have(YU)” and its complement tells us what we “Don’t-have (WU)”. It tells us that 2/3 of the job still has to be done in order to “Complete(cm)” it. The three is the numerator, It gives us the number of units which are in the “Complete(cm)” job. The “Complete” job is described in the “job-description” we give to ourselves, or which a customer (A) gives to a supplier (B-C-D). No completed job, no pay. …
What is true on level A of Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)” is true on each of the other three levels as well. As A is to B, so B is to C, and as B is to C so C is to D. This is the “Way(A1)” it is because the Law of Correspondence is universal. We can also see it working in the original IBM computer programming system. We can also know that this information is important because …
our political masters have made this perfect system “disappear”.
. The 2/3 of the work that is left to be done on Shih(B1) means finding the character in Ching 14, 32, 38 and 52, translating the sentence it is in and, if necessary, interpreting it. Since we have already done this work on Ching 64, you have an example of what is to be done. There, then, you have an example of a “job-description”. The question, or request, is one half, ½, of the task and the answer is the other half, ½. Demand (A) and supply (B-C-D) are the two halves of a “DyAd(dyad)”.
. Steiner’s fraction can simplify things very nicely. And that’s what Lao Tzu tells us to do: “See the Simple (oo*d) to Embrace it (^0^i)”. *d = Su120. ^I = P’u75. It doesn’t mean “it” but it is implied.
. The question was: How do our political masters get away with spending $1 billion for the purpose of intimidating and discouraging us? …
If you know Plato’s Republic, Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching or Hinduism well “Enough(Zu)” then you know that our political masters are following the advise which is given in these books. Knowledge is power, and because they know that, they know that we must not “Find-out the Truth (doA1)”. Lao Tzu knew that 2300 years ago and he tells us what we can do about this problem. You can also find the same truth in the Bible: “If ye continue in my word [if you study them], then are ye my disciples indeed …. And [then] ye shall know the truth and [only then] the truth shall make you free (St John:8.31-32).”
What our political masters have done here in Toronto was an exercise for preparing us for dictatorship and an attempt to discourage us from doing anything about it. Many of us have seen it, If the GESTAPO (GEheime STAats POlizei (Secret State Police)) tactics are taken just one more step towards where Hitler had it then it no longer matters whether we know the truth or not. Our political masters know the limits of the science of social engineering. They can read the signs the protesters were carrying. They know that before a critical mass of the people knows the truth, they must have absolute power to deal with that problem the way any other dictator does. They know that this is the only way for them to stay in power. And so must we before it is too late. The social engineers know that the people united can’t be defeated. The truth is one, it is what automatically “Unites($1)” the people. And now you know why they have to dumb us down.
. The government that is to be established by means of social engineering, and the takeover of the Ontario Green Party is only one example of it, is described at Gita 18.41-44. But if the people are getting too smart for that, then the more heavy handed method, we have seen here in Toronto, must be applied. And those among the marchers who have come from a dictatorship have seen that sort of thing before.
. If you Google: protocols of Zion division of labour . then you know that they know it. Their system is described at Gita 18.41-44. In that system the Brahmins (B) are on the highest level. These are the unelected advisors (B), who tell our politicians (C) what to say (C) and they tell us what to do (D). Now let’s get back to the Ching.
Ching 14: If you are
“Able to Understand the Timeless Concepts (abkn30B1) then you are following the
True Linage (A1*f.).” *f = Chi120. An easy Way to evaluate translations is to compare different ones with each other.
Ching 32:
“When once the Primal Simplicity is diversified [B1âx] Different names appeared” (YUMg J.Wu). Wing has: “Names emerge when institutions begin.” for the same four characters. Both translations tell us how Ming(Mg) is related to Shih(B1).
. After the “Primal Simplicity” (^i), or, more accurately, the primal “Concepts(B1)” are “Identified(Mg)” by the intellect (B) and then “Names(Mg)” (C) appear.
Ching 38:
“As to foreknowledge, it is only the flower of Tao,
And the beginning of folly” (#cäUerA1 Z*abtÜx J.Wu). *a = Hua140. Wing has:
“One who knows the future (#cäUer) has the luster of Tao And yet is ignorant of its origins.” Both translators have accompanied their translations by the original text, so we know that the characters they have translated are the same. My capitalized word for word style of translation doesn’t work on all sentences, but it is worth attempting here:
“Future KnowErs (#cäUer) have Tao’S Flower (A1 Z*a) But are Ignorant Of the Tao”.They have its “Flower” (B) but not its fruit (D). They have the “Knowledge(kn)” (B) of Tao as a “Concept(B1)” but not the “Understanding(kn)” of it, which can only come from “Practice(pr)”.
“My Words are Very Easy to Understand (myC2%tezkkn) Very Easy, if you Practice (%tezpr)” my lessons.
Okay, that’s Enough for today. I didn’t get a thing done on my boat. I hope that somebody, who likes boats, and who reads my call for help will help me with it. There are four pieces I have to get down the elevator: my bicycle, my bicycle trailer. The bow-section of my boat and the mid and stern section screwed together in one piece. Then, when downstairs, I have to load the trailer and get down to Harborfront at the foot of Lower Simcoe Street. There are streetcar tracks to be crossed bumps and curbs on the way and my wheels are only 3 ½ inch in diameter. Then, if I get there, I have to assemble it. The bow and stern-sections have to be glued and screwed to the midsection and each section must be glued and clamped tight before the glue dries. And all of this has to be done in one day. I have permission to assemble it there, but I can’t leave it there unassembled. Now you can see why I am reluctant to try and why I rather spent a whole day in working on two chapters of the ching. That is five chapters down, one to go. 5/6 done 1/6 left to do.
===============================================================
June 29, 2010
. There was much good stuff to read on the G20. I couldn’t finish reading it all yesterday, so I continued today. There is much quote-worthy information in our four Toronto papers, but you can read it yourself. There is, however, one article an page A20 of the Star, which I have to quote from because it supports the most “Ridiculous(*41)” one of my three questions:
“ . An estimated 10,000 idealistic people marched peacefully in Toronto on Saturday, yet the media showed …. Only endless shots of …. A small group of lawless hooligans … in black [who] were there specifically to fight. Why were none of the hundreds of police assigned to the event posted to keep an eye specifically on them? [Because then the anarchists couldn’t do what they were expected to do.] Why were none of those hundreds of police anywhere near Yonge St. when the window smashing started? [ditto] Why were police cars abandoned, empty of gas, in the middle of downtown city streets, ready to be set so picturesquely aflame? . Is it possible that the violence and the stream of pictures of vandals in black smashing windows and igniting cars is the answer to Prime Minister Stephan Harper’s prayers?” ...
This is as far as the letter writer is going. But, stating the facts makes my question sound less “Ridiculous” Yesterday I asked: “Who is financing, training and protecting them? …” Today one might add: Who is telling those vandals when and where they can do their job without interference from the police? …
The article continues: “ If nothing had happened, our coutry’s citizens might have remained appaled at the profilgate billions dollars and more on security. . Whereas now, because this well known and highly visible anarchist band somehow managed to roam freely until much damage was done, we all realize just how lucky we were that all that money was spent.
Beth Kaplan, Toronto”.
. Why do our political masters have to get us out of our intellectual center, why dumb us down? …
So that we can’t see their logic behind of what is happening.
. There are ten more excellent letters on the same subject on the same A20 page. Each one is worth quoting, but there is only so much I can do. On the editorial side of the same page, there are six more good questions. Let me just pick two of them because the validate what I have said yesterday:
“What was the thinking behind the decision to host a G20 meeting on the heels of the G8 and to hold it in Toronto?”
. As I already said yesterday: The purpose of the show of force is to intimidate and to discourage. In order to benefit from the actions of the social engineers we must understand “the thinking behind the decision”s of our political masters. To predict what they are going to do, we must know their motives and we must learn to think as well or better than they do. The other question is:
“With thousands of additional officers in town, why did the police response seem so slow to deliberate acts of vandalism?” It should be clear by now that, if the police response were faster, then the vandals couldn’t have done the damage they did. This is not “conspiracy theory”, this is common sense.
. I started reading this morning on page A20. It is lunch time now and I have to get back to the boat. =======================
. I was ready to post this section at this point but the headline of today’s Toronto Sun caught my attention: “Angry chief vows he’ll nab those behind G20 violence RIOTERS ‘WERE STUPID’” …
Now, please, think this one through: The “RIOTERS” were out there, dressed in black, smashing windows and our “Angry chief” told his men to leave them alone. And now, that they are gone, “he’ll nab” them. Something doesn’t add up here. How much do they have to dumb us down for us not to see the contradiction? ...
. Page 4, 5 and 6 are all about the G20: “More than 2000 protesters converge on police HQ and Queens Park to denounce arrest tactics”. “…. Filmmaker Charlie Veitch, 29, from London England, said he was detained for 21 hours at the …. Holding jail …. ‘I am mostly frustrated and saddened. Police are getting to have to decide whether they’re going to turn into a Gestapo state or be on the side of the people.’”
. That’s what I already said in the previous two sections. What is happening is becoming more obvious. More people are seeing the same thing and are expressing their personal take on it in their own words. But WHAT we are all saying is the same. And no amount of social engineering can change that. The awareness (A) of the kind of government we have, and the discontent with it, is growing. There are limits to social engineering and no amount of social engineering can change that.
. There is more good stuff on these three pages but let me go to Joe Wormington on page 7: “…. Chief Bill Blair …. owes me an apology. But before he gets to that, Blair should opologize first to the merchants of Yonge St., who were left alone Saturday to fend for themselves while police were everywhere else in massive numbers. . His response Saturday was an under-reaction to violence and criminal activity happening right in front of the 19,000 police officers under his command. . On Sunday, it was a gross over-reaction …. I also wonder if Blair owes an apology to his frustrated police officers …. A number of officers have told me they were keen to take the dirt balls down and end it early …. An officer …. I got in touch with, said in an e-mail to AM 640’s John Oakley, ‘Our guys wanted to wade in but our senior officers and our socialist mayor would not permit it.’ . Is this true chief? . This officer, with 28 years on the job, said for ‘month we have attended endless training for this moment and when the day came we were not allowed to react and left to watch law breakers …. Go on an unprecedented rampage.’ …. He said, ‘we had to sit on our hands and watch these clowns make us look stupid’ and ‘our rank and file almost to a man and woman, are angered over this.’”
. The three questions I asked in yesterdays section were: “Who is financing, training and protecting” these anarchist? …
The answers to the first two still have to be determined; the answer to the thids one should be more obvious by now.
===============================================================================
June 28, 2010
. The people taking part in Saturday’s protest march were estimated to be ten thousand. The Black Bloc anarchists are estimated to be between 50 and 100 troublemakers who have broken windows and set police cars on fire. Prime Minister Stephen Harper said that the damage they have done has justified his spending of a billion dollars on security. I don’t want to be called a “conspiracy theorist” but I can’t help asking some questions: …
Anarchy is not the democracy the protestors want. The question is: …
If the anarchists are not working for democracy, what are they working for? The next question is: …
Who is financing, training and protecting them? …
These questions may seem to be “Ridiculous(*41)”. They are supposed to appear that way. Lao Tzu says: Of “Calamities There-is-none Greater Than Underestimating (ÜfMOTAto$j) the intellectual, political and economic powers of your Enemy(ăb).”
. Put yourself into the shoes of our political masters and ask yourself what you would do to stay in power? …
There is another thing Harper has to justify: Building that million dollar jailhouse on Eastern Avenue. How did he justify that? …
Fill it up. Round up hundreds of innocent bystanders and fill up those empty jail-cells. I mean, you can’t build a million dollar jailhouse without using it. I think picking on reporters and columnists who were simply doing their job was a mistake. There are some very good articles and columns in today’s papers. Some writers have said things they wouldn’t ordinarily say. I have bought all of our four papers today. Good reading, but too much. Here is just one short summary of the G20 by James Travers of the Star: “It’s simply not good enough to rationalize this much waste, damage and disruption as the cost of a central role on the world stage, an investment in leader familiarity or, most laughably, as promoting tourism. Taxpayers struggling to make their own ends meet aren’t so easily persuaded that this $1 billion was wisely spent.”
. There is a full page article on the “Black Bloc” in the Star. It is a kind of secret international organization. Which means that my question is another “job-description”. Books have been written about this group but somebody has to use the right questions and do some investigative reporting on it. Again, as with the illuminati, we need insiders who will spill the beans.
In the last section, in front of file #2 I have made the usual mistakes. Letting you know that they are there should keep you on your toes. I also mentioned “participatory democracy”. What I like to add there is, that I was a cofounder of the Ontarion Green Party. We had a good facilitator so that we got the consensus decision-making process working right away. Three things are achieved by this process: Getting the people to make the decisions, …
Community building and …
Education. You can’t make intelligent decisions if you don’t know what you are deciding on. Again, put yourself into the shoes of our political masters. Can they allow such a thing? …
The party was infiltrated, one infiltrator took pen in hand and single-handedly rewrote our constitution. From then on, the membership had no longer the right to make the decisions. I was a member of the Greenwood Green constituency association. We objected to the takeover of our party. What happened next? …
We got deregistered. Social engineers are professionals. The reason they are getting away with what they are doing is because we can’t believe (C) what professionals can do. It is as Lao Tzu said: Of “Calamities There-is-none Greater Than Underestimating the intellectual (B), political (C) and economic (D) powers of our Enemy.”
. To discredit Lao Tzu, our political masters would have to call him a conspiracy theorist. When they “Hear the Truth (^dA1) they will Greatly Ridicule It (TA*a Z) if they Don’t Ridicule (PU*a) it then we Don’t have Enough Means To find out the Truth (PUZuYIdoA1).”
. There is nothing in the Tao Te Ching you have to believe (C). Lao Tzu takes you out of the emotional center (C), the syntactic dimension of semiotics, into the intellectual center (B), the semantic dimension. This is the very opposite of what the social engineers have to do. They have to …
take you out of the intellectual center and put you into the emotional center.
============================================================
="MsoNormal" style="">
